Why Do Blacks Vote Democrat?
87
 | Amazon Price: $9.60 |
 | Amazon Price: $7.86 List Price: $16.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.91 List Price: $26.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.00 List Price: $26.95 |
As a youngster someone told me that the Democrats are for the little guy. Therefore, I decided that I must be a Democrat. I was a true Democrat until I was about nine years old and I figured out that not only were the Democrats not for the little guy but they definitely were not for me, a black person. I was nine years old in 1968, this was the year that Rev. King was assassinated and Pres. Nixon was elected. It was the Democratic Party in the south that Rev. King was fighting. He fought against segregationists like Democratic Georgia Governor Lester Maddox, Alabama Governor George Wallace and Democratic Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham who was the man that released dogs and used skin scorching fire hoses against blacks. I can still remember convincing my mother that Nixon was the better candidate and the Republican Party should be supported because they were for all people not just “the little” people. If I am a “little” person what is it that I need? Little people need big people to take care of them. How did I figure this out at such a very early age? I read about the Civil War and the freedom that it brought my ancestors. It's just pure common sense that the people who were your enemy one day could not be your friend the next. This is the reason I have such a hard time answering the question, why do blacks vote Democrat? It’s emotional but here is my opinion based on the facts that I have read and lived over the years.
“When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” 1 Cor. 13:11 This verse is what I perceive to be the whole problem. Let’s take a tour back in time to the days just before the Civil War. Most blacks lived in the south and most were slaves. Slaves were given their meager portions of food and poor lodging by their masters. They were told how to talk, “Yes, Master,” what to think, “You are worth whatever I paid for you” and when and where to go. Black people were told not to think, in fact they were told they could not think for themselves because God created them for servitude. It was the northern Abolitionist who first said this was an abomination. That one man should not enslave another. They were the ones who said we needed to live out our creed that all are equal in the eyes of Almighty God.
Once the Civil War ended the struggle for equality began. Most blacks saw the Republican Party as the party of freedom and during Reconstruction this was true. Reconstruction had to end and the Republican Party became a minority party in the south with very few white Republicans. The Democrats or the three “s” party, slavery, secession and segregation, had all the power and wielded it with an iron fist. Virtually enslaving blacks all over again.
Blacks in the south were left alone to fight for themselves, their paternalistic Republican Party left them to build alliances of their own. This failed miserably because the last thing the racist south wanted were free blacks, they wanted slaves, free labor and power. The violence that was released upon the freedmen was unbearable and the freedmen gave up their equality to be considered lesser men. Many injustices ensued at the hands of white racist Democrats but even when the Republicans tried to help they we rebuffed by the majority, the Democrats. President Theodore Roosevelt tried to intervene through the infamous peonage trials but could not stop the incidents of involuntary servitude. Therefore, blacks felt abandoned even though all the advances of the black race was a product of the Republican Party from 1860 to 1968 they left the party in droves when the Democrats started offering social programs to take care of “the little man.” Encouraged by the likes of Jesse Jackson more blacks voted Democrat. Because of Democratic social programs more black men left the home in order to let the government send money to take care of his family. He planted his seed far and wide and when the seed was rejected because the planter would be absent, our precious babies were aborted in the millions, all federally funded by Democratic social engineering.
Republicans kept offering a hand up and Democrats a handout. Handouts being easier they were accepted over a hand up. Even blacks that did not take handouts were glad that they were there so they wouldn't have to be responsible for their brothers and sisters. They voted and still vote to keep government handouts going because it is easier than arguing with those who won’t work or taking care of those who can’t. This is a syndrome that has affected all of our society and the Democratic Party has solidified its base of those who want government to be responsible instead of being responsible themselves. I admit that I could be wrong about some of my observations but I think they are rational and supported by history. Why do blacks vote Democrat, because there are so few responsible black men! Many blacks have been duped into a paternalistic psychological slavery where to be taken care of by the government is encouraged, freedom of thought is discouraged and to be different from the group is not tolerated. Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Michael Steele along with other Black Republicans are repudiated because they stand for responsibility and freedom, they are not on the Paternalistic Psychological Plantation.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (11)
- Funny
- Awesome (17)
- Beautiful (2)
- Interesting (8)
CommentsLoading...
You're entitled to your opinion, but just because you are black doesn't mean you are correct. Blacks vote for Democrats because since Nixon's and Reagan's "southern strategy" which resulted in the conversion of nearly all of the old southern racist Democrats to the GOP. Harry Truman integrated the Armed forces, and it was Democrats who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting rights Act, and who have supported a variety of other legislation that has benefited African-Americans--increases in the minimum wage, the Fair Housing Act, Medicaid and so forth, most of which received little or no support from the Republicans. In effect you are saying that African Americans are irresponsible and unable to ascertain what is in their own best interest. Without the Democrats pushing for anti-discrimination laws, African Americans would not have been able to advance to higher paying jobs--in the skilled trades and white collar jobs in accounting, engineering and other professional vocations. Many of the Africans with whom I am acquainted might well consider you an Uncle Tom.
Terrific common sense hub that tells it like it is. You have a great message to spread to young people everywhere. Clearly, judging from the comment above, older people have closed minds.
eovery, thanks for your kind comment, I'm doing my best to spread the truth.
Ralph Deeds, your arguments as similar to those on my other hub, "Why Does Obama Have a 98% Approval Rating Among Blacks?," so my answer is basically the same. Yes the Democrats rewrote history to suit their needs and made the Nixon southern strategy a racist strategy when it was far from it. Nixon's southern strategy was successful because he wanted fair minded non-racists southerners to stop voting for Democrats. He convinced them to do so and these are the white southerners who still vote for Republicans. Of course, there will be the odd racist who calls himself a Republican but you seem to forget that for 100 years the south was solid Democrat and the agenda was race. Rev. King personally thanked Nixon for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 which Kennedy and Johnson both voted against. Nixon is the author of the Affirmative Action Legislation, Republican Everett Dirksen was the Senator who championed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The majority of Republicans backed these bill which would not have passed without their votes. The Republicans who didn't back it thought it didn't go far enough. The south was not solid Republican until 2007. This is due to the fact that Georgia didn't vote Republican until 2004 and Louisiana until 2007. As for the things the Democrats got right I do not claim that the Democrats are wrong on every issue just the majority of them. I could go on and on but you really should check non-partisan facts not rewritten history.
Personally, I could care less what your acquaintances would call me, can they refute my arguments?
breakfastpop, thanks for the comment. As I stated in the hub it's a tough message, very emotional but I think it is a true one and need to be said. The truth is what sets us free.
Thank you for this terrific post. I think many vote reflexively as Democrats because that's just the way it is. They live their life with values more aligned with Republicans but vote with the Democrats. You could say the same for many groups like Northeastern Catholics or people in Unions.
I believe it will take a couple of generations to break this cycle but there are signs that it is happening. Look no further than inner city school choice in Milwaukee. It is a Republican type of idea that works and is overwhelmingly supported by parents in the inner city who want better for their children. Many of these people are the same ones who vote reflexively for Democrats. Sooner of later the light bulb will go on and it is people like you who help that happen quicker. Keep up the great work.
Tom T, thanks for the comment. Most Blacks are much more conservative than the Democrats and their values are more in line with the Republican Party that's why I think the way I do.
Right Black - On what planet are you on dude? Jesse Jackson got blacks to vote democrat so that they could get on welfare? Blacks began voting democrat during FDR’s administration so unless Jesse Jackson performed this great feat at the tender age of 2 your observation (as usual) is wrong when it comes to the motivations of blacks. Another reason for the shift was the integration of the military during WWII. The deal was sealed when Robert Kennedy introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and LBJ signed it.
You need to take a moment and stop using ancient history as your excuse for being part of the Republican Party and evaluate your party today. The civil war is long gone and so is the philosophy of the republican party of that time. Which party is preferred today by active KKK members and white supremacists? I didn’t hear democrat voters say ‘we are leaving the party rather than voting for that N**G*R.’ But the Republican Party had a yeoman’s share of such rhetoric rising from floor of its rally’s. So, what would your comfort level be standing between “Obama as a monkey” and “Obama eating fried chicken” posters as you cheer on the party of Lincoln.
True. Michigan Republicans are circulating all kinds of racist jokes and cartoons. For example a cartoon of a huge White House walk-refrigerator completely full of watermelons with Obama at the door.
The history that Right Black forgets to include in his observation of republican commitment to the black community is that after the civil rights act passed (by Democrats) racist democrats began switching parties from blue to red. This is why the south is now red and the north blue. In todays time Lincoln would have undoubtedly been a Democrat.
My final comment I put in a hub:
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Black-Republican
Feel free to leave a comment
Ralph and SOBF, I'm glad to see that you are at least thinking about this issue. Let's get the history correct. FDR did offer blacks a new deal. The deal was you can go die for your country and I'll give you the crumbs from under the table. When the war was over and the black soldier came home he came back to the same old racist America he left. In the 1950's more blacks voted Republican. They knew they had been lied to. Here is an aside, if some where near the same amount of blacks voted Democrat and Republican I would not have written this hub. Next, in 1960 during the presidential campaign Rev. King, Jr was in jail and VP Nixon refused to use this event as a photo op but Sen. John Kennedy went to the jail and Rev. King, Sr. told blacks in his congregation it was okay to vote Democrat. Rev. King, Jr. was always a registered Republican. As far as who was responsible for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Act look no further than the Republican Party. Everett Dirksen, not Robert Kennedy, the same man who headed up the 1957 Civil Rights Act was the leader in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Even if Pres. Kennedy supported a bill and subbmitted suggestions presidents don't write bills they only sign them. Kennedy was not in favor of the Civil Rights Movement but couldn't ignore it. It was his administration that bugged Rev. King, Jr.'s phone, had constant surveillance on him and called him a communist. Pres. Kennedy was against the March on Washington. LBJ was wise enough to see the unrest that was building and the violence that would be unleashed had he vetoed the Civil Rights and Voting Act Bills. All you two have to do is look at who voted for these bills and you will see that they would not have passed without the Republicans and the majority of Republicans voted for them. You can also break the vote up into north and south and you'll see the north voted for and the south against. The south was predominantly Democrat. More than 80% of the Republicans in both Houses of Congress voted for the Civil Rights Bill and Barry Goldwater in his autobiography says he didn't think it went far enough and in the form it was voted on, it may not be constitutional. The Republicans wanted a bill that could not be overturned by the Supreme Court. Again you may think that this is ancient history but if you don't learn from history... I'm sure you can complete this one.
Currently, we see your Democrat leaders making racist comments as Harry Reid has done on at least two different occasions now and all Black Democrats do is give him cover. This is no cartoon but the Majority Leader of the Senate.
Finally, I lived in the midwest when Jesse Jackson was coming around telling blacks to vote Democrat. Follow the money, Jesse received more than $6 million from Pres. Carter's Administration in Grants. Do you think they were paying for black votes? I'll take that bet every day of the week.
Right Black - As usual you fail to address the racist in the Republican party and like most good republican you ignore the race based tactics used by Reagan in order to win the Presidential election.
Did you actually try to pass Nixons refusal to address King as some righteous refusal of a photo op...Wow! Jesse Jackson campaigned for democrats that provided him support, you say this like it is something unique to blacks and Jesse Jackson is some evil doer for doing what whites have done for centuries. So how do you address the change of party by racist democrats to the republican party...let me guess, they found christ.
This could be absolutely empowering. Its very true in some ways that because all democrat and republican politicians assume democrats will win the Black vote by a landslide. They dont try or 'cater' anything towards them. And why should they waste time and money to do so when both sides know which way they will vote.
Its such a sad loss of political power for such a large group!
Harry Reid's remarks racist? You are reaching so far for justification of your personal choices that you are starting to simply repeat republican talking points. What black person had a problem with what Reid said with the exception of Steele - and if you consider that racist how in sam hill do you even put finger to keyboard to defend the republican party?
Next question, how many black people do you actually know that live their lives for a welfare check? I happen to know atleast a couple and welfare is a stigma in the black community, even amongst adults. How brainwashed are you to actually repeat that crap?
RightBlack, have you ever read any of Leonard Pitts' columns?
Here's his take on Harry Reid's column
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
Somebody please tell Harry Reid there are no Negroes in America.
There haven't been since the late 1960s, which is when black people arrived and drove that term out of favor. The person who uses it without irony, as Reid did, paints himself as a geezer out of touch with the last 40 years, the kind of person who still calls rock music a fad.
That said, there is little else to complain about in the quote from the Senate majority leader that has political types hyperventilating. Said quote is from Game Change, the new book on the 2007-08 presidential campaign. It has Reid, a supporter of then-candidate Barack Obama, privately suggesting the country was finally ready to elect a black man, especially one who, like Obama, is ``light-skinned'' and has ``no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.''
A firestorm has raged ever since, with GOP Chairman Michael Steele likening Reid's remarks to the gaffe that got Sen. Trent Lott in trouble eight years ago. In his online column, Journal-isms, Richard Prince writes that panelists on the Sunday talk shows ``were shocked, shocked that there is `colorism' in America and a perceived `Negro dialect.' . . . Coincidentally, there were no journalists of color in any of the discussions.''
Too bad.
Questions bypassed
They might have helped frame the one question that has gone conspicuously unaddressed in the loud debate over what Reid said:
Was he right?
Sure he was. Moreover, there is something unbearably precious in the idea of pundits bypassing that question to debate the existence of colorism and black dialect.
Anyone who doubts the existence of the former should acquaint herself with the ``doll tests'' conducted by Dr. Kenneth Clark in the '30s and '40s and revived by young filmmaker Kiri Davis in the 2000s. Those tests found black children describing otherwise identical white dolls as ``nice'' and ``good'' and black ones as ``bad.'' If colorism is this pronounced among black people -- and it is -- is anyone naive enough to believe it has no beachhead among white ones?
Anyone who doubts the existence of a black dialect (actually dialects, plural) denies self-evident truth. Of course there is, just as there is a Boston Irish dialect, a Southern white dialect, a Midwestern dialect. So what?
Anyone who doubts Obama's ability to turn said dialect off and on has never heard him work a black audience -- or reporter. I interviewed Obama once. He quoted something I had written about him, whereupon I expressed surprise that he knew my work. Obama's reply: ``Oh yeah, brother, I read you.''
Modes of speech
I have trouble imagining him addressing George F. Will in a similar manner. I also have trouble understanding why this calibration of language would be problematic. Don't the members of most groups -- ethnic, racial, religious, geographic, occupational -- speak differently among their own?
The gist of Reid's comment, then, is that a dark-skinned man who announced his candidacy thusly -- ``I'm gon' run for president. I ax for your support.'' -- would have trouble being taken seriously. I find that an unremarkable contention. George W. Bush couldn't pronounce ``nuclear'' if you put a gun to his head, and you need a GPS and a Sherpa to get through Sarah Palin's winding utterances, but their race buys them at least a measure of forbearance that -- call me crazy -- I don't think a dark-skinned candidate could expect.
To believe Reid did something wrong in talking about that is to buy the silly contention that talking about race is, of itself, racist. The morally malleable Michael Steele knows better. He also knows full well that Trent Lott's sin was to suggest America would have been better off had an arch-segregationist been elected president in 1948. That's not close to what Reid did.
No, Reid's sin was to be blunt, indecorous, impolitic.
And right.
I just heard one of the biggest Uncle Tom's on C-Span plugging his book, Ward Connerly. To his credit he is an African American who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and has a lot of credibility with others who are opposed to many of the programs which have been of immense benefit to African Americans. Nevertheless, he is a quintissential Uncle Tom in my opinion because he has been advocating the dismantling of affirmative action programs which have opened doors to minorities in employment and education which were long slammed shut in their faces. Of course, Connerly is a Republican. And if I wanted to be nasty I would accuse him of being an opportunistic Black Republican. I won't make that accusation because I have never met him and I can't see into his mind or heart. He sounds quite sincere in describing his beliefs.
Not the affirmitive action argument...OMG. Does anyone realize that AA is only used in some academic institutions with regards to race. It also cannot be associated to quota's meaning they have no direct affect on white applicants. AA is used in the private and public job sectors to give preference not to blacks but to veterans. If anyone has filled out a job application recently they will see a section requesting military background information, that is a affirmative action program.
Black Republicans spew such crap because they chase the dollar and know that by being black and pandering to the right they can cash in on their limited abilities.
yenajeon, thanks for your comments. The black vote is discounted by both parties and black political capital is at an all time low since blacks refuse to see how they are being treated by the Democrats.
SOBF and Ralph Deeds, you two are actually making me laugh. :) How does that tactic work again. Oh yeah, make as many allegations as possible, don't recognize the substantive answers, find anything that wasn't answered to your satisfaction and act as if the answers don't exist.
Rev. King thanked Nixon in 1966 for his work on Civil Rights and his vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act. King recognized that Nixon was for the Civil Rights Movement. Both Nixon and Reagan's southern strategy was to encourage NON-racist southerner to vote Republican. The "Reverend" Jesse Jackson should be held to a higher standard because he says he has found Christ. It is the Black Democrat who is always screaming race, race, race, so if they scream race when a Republican utters something as meaningless as what Harry Reid said shouldn't Reid be held to the same standard?
It seems that you two are in agreement, SOBF don't you think anything about agreeing so much with a person who thinks it is okay to use a pejorative term to refer to blacks just because they don't agree with him? Maybe you're just proving the point of this hub?
Right Black - I am the one with the giggles. Your attempts to ignore reality and paint over the truth with historic antidotes are nothing short of amusing. You continually overlook blatant acts of racism in an effort to continue your performance as a great appeaser. You have yet to address any of the acts by those who you claim to be honest and just men, instead you continue to claim it as irrelevant due to some singular act of politics. I will gladly point out the racism within the Democratic Party, for example the statement made by Clinton who I have always considered a racist since his days as Governor of Arkansas. I hold no fear in admitting the racism that exists in the Democratic Party; however it is racism of a different type, it comes with some level of tolerance.
You seem to fear making an honest statement as it relates to the Republican Party, even with the evidence provided you on a daily basis. This friend is why blacks reject black conservatives. They duck and dodge the issues, like you have ducked and dodged my questions regarding your statements on welfare, the south turning red after the civil rights act, and the racist approach to politics by Reagan. These are not unknown assumptions, or baseless conclusions but documented facts.
The mere fact that you have more angst towards Jesse Jackson than you have towards Ronald Reagan leaves me in total amazement. Jesse has never been responsible for the death of a person, black, white, or indifferent, on the other hand, how many inner-city blacks have died due to the leadership of Reagan and his desire to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy the BPP. But then again I’m sure you think they where just a black version of the KKK… Actually, it was Jesse Jackson who put his life on the line to negoatiate the release of American citizens taken hostage around the globe, with no color stipulation as to who he helped.
Time to duck...LOL!
SOBF, the south turning red has been answered to both you and Ralph, you may not like the answer but I will not appease you or anyone else for that matter.
As far as Reagan and the Black Panther Party is concerned I don't think they were the black version of the KKK. The BPP were communists and Reagan is famous for his fight against communists. He would have been against them if they were Green Martians if they were communists. Reagan fought white, brown and yellow communists as well as these home grown black ones. Reagan was an equal opportunity disruptor, dismantler and communist destroyer.
LBJ's Great Society supplied the welfare programs that destroyed many black families. I watched it happen. I don't blame the original takers of this deal because they were trying to support their families during tough economic times for the black community but the family had to be split in order to get the "benefits." It's the brothers I grew up with that bother me, I know they just got women pregnant and left because they knew she could get welfare. Once I turned 25 I could rarely find a sister without an illegitimate child. Most of those brothers are gone now, jail or dead due to Democratic social engineering. They had so much idle time on their hands as a result of run ins with the law which left them unemployable that they killed each other. Yes, I know that the police killed some but if they had been home raising a family they would not have been in trouble. I had a cousin who lived with me when I was about 5 years old and the police hung him in jail but he was a drunk trouble maker. That gives them no right but my cousin wasn't innocent either. Were his murders Democrat or Republican, who cares! He's dead. But the policies of the Democratic Party have historically been anti-black, you admit it, all I want you to see is that they have changed their tactics. Call my experiences antidotal if you choose, I call them reality. I was there and decided to leave instead of die.
Jesse Jackson does what is good for Jesse. If helping American citizen is in his best interest he will do it. Follow the money.
Wow, I got mugged-up in the comments...and will keep my mouth shut there...BUT your hub speaks wisdom, clarity of perception, determined self-generation, and a steel-over-velvet approach to truth. I will be an admirer as I follow your hubbing. Thank you for your voice!
What do you make of this recent comment by the Republican candidate for governor of South Carolina?
``He'' is South Carolina Lt. Gov. André Bauer, running for governor on the GOP ticket. Speaking of those who receive public assistance, he recently told an audience, ``My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better.''
You read that right. The would-be governor of one of the poorest states there is likens the poor to stray animals.
And though it drew some newspaper notice, a riposte from The Daily Show and rebukes from Bauer's opponents, it never quite rose to the level of national controversy, as it would've had Bauer compared, say, women or Jews to the dogs one feeds at one's back door. The relative silence stands as eloquent testimony to the powerlessness and invisibility of the American poor.
Leonard Pitts in the Miami Herald:
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/colum … 54250.html
frogyfish, thanks for your comment and compliment. Your encouragement is welcomed.
Ralph, you'll find your answer on the following hub since you asked the same question twice, http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-Does-Obama-Have-a-98-A
Right Black – The BPP were communist? Ok, ok, let me put on by beret which I’ve worn since I was 10 years old. Oops…can’t forget the red, black, and green fist of unity.
Communist, communist, what you talking about communist!
The Black Panther Party was a Nationalist organization that encouraged self education as a vehicle of enlightenment to the black community. Part of that enlightenment included the study of different governments, societies, and political philosophies. The Black Panther Party had two main objectives, first to protect the citizens in its communities from the police violence they encountered on a daily basis and second to educate blacks to the fact that they could not depend on a white power structure to provide the necessary infrastructure needed to address the poverty issues in the black community. This included education, healthcare, and economic growth. As a result of teaching self education a few (not most, not half, not even a large segment) of the members in the party became communist.
Reagan had a history of killing communist in America (What a great American)
Such a tremendous claim would require one to provide at least a shred of evidence to support their argument. Some documentation of Reagan providing immunity to government agencies or persons be they at the federal or local level for their efforts to destroy communist in America by any means necessary. While there is a great amount of evidence to support the murderous rampage against the Black Panther Party, I think you will find any such regarding the assassination of members of the communist party lacking. Yes, there was a movement to black ball those (mainly in the entertainment industry) that were aligned with the communist party, but what you are attempting to draw a parallel to is murder.
To respond to the rest of your assertions regarding the black race, the republican race lovers, and social engineering would take no only one but multiple hubs, therefore I will do just that.
SOBF, I'm amazed that you wear a beret and don't know the BPP official political stance. Eldridge Cleaver the BPP's Minister of Information was certainly aware that he was part of a communist organization. I challenge you to watch all 9 parts of the following youtube video where he tells an audience in his own words about his conversion to Christianity, American Capitalism and the Republican Party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJyBbx18iiA
After viewing this you may understand me just a bit more.
Right Black - If you had responded that the BPP was not a perfect organization, I would have said you're right the biggest problem in the organization was Eldridge Cleaver. You give far too much credence to the man who spent all of 12 months as part of the BPP.
A serial rapist who himself not the BPP wanted to overthrow the government of the US.
Cleaver separated from the BPP at the request of Newton when Cleaver wanted to escalate the violence, encouraging a all out war in which the black society would have been decimated.
Huey P. Newton promoted what he called Revolutionary Socialism. Revolutionary, not because of the black revolution but because the philosophy of socialism that he encouraged was itself revolutionary. Newton understood that he did not live in a communist or socialist country but the values behind socialism could be used to address the problems in the black community. This is the doctrine used across the country and the reason why the violence associated with the Oakland chapter did not spread across the country.
However, if Eldridge Cleaver is your point of reference I totally understand where you are coming from.
Right Black - For your reference
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.h
Please show me where the concern by the FBI had anything to do with Communism....Everything I read is directed at Black activist.
Added side note...during Cointelpros attack on the BPP, SNCC, and other black activist Nixon was President and Reagan was Governor of California.
SOBF, Glad to see we are back to the subject, why do blacks vote for Democrats? You are so right when you speak of socialism. The Democratic Party has adopted the politics of the radicals and is now a socialist party. They are the party of divide and conquer. They play racial and class warfare and get everyone angry at everyone else. Huey would be proud.
J. Edgar Hoover is another Democratic problem. Appointed by FDR he was given unfettered power and by the time Nixon and Reagan came along he could manufacture the "truth" to be whatever he wanted it to be. He started COINTELPROS. I recall a few years back when I was obsessing on spies, I came across some of this data. The CIA hated the FBI under Hoover (not that the CIA was any better) their intelligence gathering was sloppy but Hoover was a branch of government unto himself. Truman, Kennedy and LBJ knew who he was and what he was involved with but it took Republicans time to find out. Ike appointed Chief Justice Warren to the Supreme Court and this temporarily put a check on him. Once Kennedy couldn't get rid of him because of the evidence he had against him, Hoover's tenure continued. He gave Republican officials what he deemed necessary but when they found out, it was the Nixon Administration that shut him down. Again, it is much better to be wrong in the beginning (or in this case mislead) than wrong in the end. No one will ever say that Nixon was an angel nor will I say that everything Reagan did, I agree with but the majority of their policies were good for the majority of Americans whether they be black or white. That's what I'm looking for, perfection is unattainable, I'm sure you'll agree. What is best for America as a whole is what I seek.
Cleaver may have been the problem in the beginning but he had ideas toward the end of his life which can still be part of the solution and it didn't involve handouts but equal opportunity and the government getting out of the way and letting our American principles and values work.
Cleaver said "I think that it is possible for the capitalist system to have a program of full employment, but we have a spiritual and moral problem in America. Our problem is not economic or political, it is that we do not care about each other because we say hey look, my people, my group, we're first class and you guys, you're second class and you guys over there, you're third class and you guys in the back right there, ain't got no class. That's our attitude but our creator never wasted his or her time creating a second class person. He made us all first class and he provided this earth as our home for all of us, not for the black man, the white man, the red man, the yellow man, the brown man, but for the whole human family." This is the attitude that can save America and it doesn't come from the Democratic Party.
Yes, the theory of Utopia...all men are created equal and all we have to do is wait our turn and the world will open at our feet. This is what you call rhetoric - the hopes of people that can never be achieved until the day the lamb lays next to the lion.
Newton never regarded social programs by the government of the united states in his profile of socialism. It started and stopped in the black community. It was inturn Nationalism the thing feared by both democrats and republicans. The community formation that lifted every ethnic group in American society out of poverty and into the mainstream. Black Nationalism is a threat to unreastrained US Capitalism and unrestrained US Capitalism in the calling card of the Republican party. Unreastrained Capitalism as practice in this country requires cheap labor in order for it to survive. Inequality amongst the population insures the availability of such labor, including the denial of safety net programs that offer support and allow them the opportunity needed to improve their lives.
If a man is unable to purchase a pair a shoes, he will be unable to go to work, to go to school, to do things required to improve his status in life. Therefore, he will be left with accepting whatever he can under any condition in order to feed himself.
Cointelpro never ended, it was exposed and taken back underground. That is why you think Jesse Jackson in a self serving race baiter.
4. Prevent militant black nationalist groups and leaders from gaining respectability by discrediting them....
While you think Ronald Reagan was a great leader.
SOBF, all created equal except you. You are superior and we should all listen to you and everyone who agrees with you, correct? COINTELPRO went underground, that's why you know about it. Do you have some secret intel we need to know about?
Jesse Jackson, a self serving race baiter. No way, the man that never had a church, never had a real job but has millions of dollars, that's not self serving. I guess we'll just have to disagree. History will judge what kind of leader Reagan was.
Sorry Right Black - I may be created equal but something unequal happens over my lifetime. I receive less pay for the same job, my academic institutions are less funded, and I still face unfair lending practices by financial institutions, all of which have a tremendous affect on my standard of living. So, while I am created equal I am still not treated as equal. I understand you may be happy to quit at 90% equality but most of us are not.
Jesse Jackson opened doors for black business owners who employ employees of all races. Businesses that would not be owned by blacks had it not been for Jesse. So, he may have taken a kickback in the process, what difference does that really make considering the end result he deserved it.
On Reagan, you may skirt Nixon on not knowing but the FBI worked together with local law enforcement in carrying out its attacks in California and that could not have been done without the participation of its Governor in the same manner the CIA could not have flown drugs into Arkansas at the level it was done without its Governor (Clinton) knowing. The jury was out on Reagan before he became President.
Cointelpro - Watching the news this evening a FBI agent disclosed that the US has a policy that authorizes the killing of citizens it deems terrorist threats. Sound familiar?
Boy we live in two different Americas.
SOBF, sorry you are not treated equal but I don't find that for anyone, anywhere. There is always someone we can point to that is getting better treatment whether it be because of their race or the economic situation they were born into. I don't expect equal anything, if you want equality you want socialism. I want freedom and that is what I have. I can persuade people to deal fairly with me or I can choose not to deal with them. I'm not happy with 90% either I just have a different way about getting what is right and "fair." Of course, fair is for children, nothing is really fair.
Jesse not only got kick backs, you had to pay to play. Those blacks who decided to let people know what he was doing were driven out of business or lost their jobs and position. Jesse Jackson puts on the cloak of a pastor and deceives many.
I'm sure Reagan knew that the FBI was targeting these groups. The question is did he know why? To him they were communist trouble makers in his backyard, he had to do something to keep the peace.
Let's say your argument about drug trafficking is true, they don't give the drugs away there has to be a market. If blacks did't buy them then there would be no damage to the black community. Conversely, white people have been damaged by the drug culture as well.
COINTELPRO - was a secret operation if the FBI is now engaged in the same practice it is obviously not a well kept secret seeing that it is being broadcast over the airwaves of American TV. I guess the lesson is don't get involved with terrorism.
Finally, I must agree that we live in two very different Americas. You're welcome to come to mine. You might call it Utopian but remember without the dream where would we be? The Dreamer may have been killed but the dream still lives on and everyday becomes more and more a reality.
Right Black - Your history is a little off. The BPP was attacked prior to fighting back. Since when are free lunch programs and medical clinics terrorist or communist acts? I guess teaching ex-offenders to use their street skills to start their own businesses (notice no handout involved) should have me on a FBI list of potential terrorist and a possible candidate for assignation.
Reagan/Good - Blacks/BAD!
Please, please, please don't use the "just say no" claim on drugs. It is without a doubt the most unintelligent argument ever posed against the attack on black America. I can't believe that even you actually give credence to such a simplistic, unrealistic concept of plausible deniability. You have actually reconciled Reagan's actions by saying its ok that he did it the problem was that the black community took it destroying their own community. You have got to bring a greater level of logic to this argument than that.
COINTELPRO - One of the first things I was taught as I entered into adulthood was that one who gains their knowledge from the "MEDIA" is misinformed and unenlightened. The "DREAM" was a single speech that many, self included wish King had never made. I doubt that the man who made that speech would want the message he espoused to be condensed into something as meaningless as "I have a dream". Yes, it is Utopia and as you continue to reap the benefits of those of us who understand that and continue to struggle for human (not social) equality you have every right to sit on the sideline and claim you are some part of a "Dream". I will settle for knowing that when my grandchildren go to the hospital their human worth will be considered that same as that of a white child. That feelings of heightened anxiety felt by even you when being tailgated by a police car is an experience they will never know. That a society that would socially and morally condemn a man for beating a dog after it goes to bathroom on the floor, would have as much concern when a black man is beat by police because he didn’t immediately comply to a request.
Do you really believe that a party that believes none of the conditions mentioned exist in our society will work to resolve them? This is why I call you a ninety percenter, you are happy for the above mentioned to remain in place in exchange for the freedoms and opportunities you have gained. Continuing to fight for human equality has little to nothing to do with wanting handouts or entitlements, however you have become part of a culture that has bought into this concept, a concept directed at the less educated and prejudiced majority in our society.
Jesse Jackson statement ( source or example please)
SOBF, I would never say and did not say that free lunch programs and medical clinics are acts of terrorism or communist acts. I did say that BPP was a communist party. Cleaver and Newton admit this and when cross examined at his trial Carmichael had to plead the fifth. It is juvenile to think that one thing is all good and the other all bad but yes I would say Reagan did more good than the Black Panther Party. This does not equal "Blacks/BAD" because not all blacks agreed with the BPP.
I didn't make the drug problem as simple as "just say no" but their needs to be some personal responsibility when it comes to the drug problem among blacks. No one is forced to take drugs.
I'm glad to see we agree that the "MEDIA" is not the place to get the best information. I'm glad Rev. King shared his dream with me and I embrace it everyday. Using the words "I have a dream" is a synecdoche which names a part for the whole, just another way of referring to the whole speech and Rev. King would have understood this as many people were already calling it the "I Have A Dream" speech before he was murdered.
Almost every American has heightened anxiety when the police are tailgating them. I have learned that if I get pulled over and treat them with respect I have no problem. This was the case even after the Rodney King case when LA burned. I don't deny that there are racist cops but they are the vast minority today. When black men are beaten unlawfully it is reported all over the news from coast to coast. It's not that America now doesn't care enough for its black citizens it is that it cares to much for its dogs.
I have never heard a Republican say that racism doesn't exist at all. Many Republicans believe that it would be a lot better were it not for Democrats exploiting it even where it doesn't exist. This hypocrisy can be seen often in the public discourse of our politicians.
SOBF it is beneath you to call me names it discredits your arguments. Just because I disagree doesn't make me a ninety percenter nor does it prove me to be "less educated."
Finally, If you want some good reading on Jesse Jackson buy this book, Jesse Jackson: America's David by Barbara A. Reynolds, this will give you a good start.
Right Black - To set the record straight I never called you a name. I described you as a ninety percenter, meaning that you are satisfied with your current status. As far as calling you "less educated" please read the comment again, I believe I said "majority" which refers to whites.
You have shown a consistant habit of praising whites while ignoring or even criticizing blacks.
Lincoln freed the slaves - Truth be told if there was no Douglas there would have been no freedom. The Civil War may have been about slavery but it was not about freedom until Douglas pushed Lincolns hand.
Republican politicians were responsible for the Civil Rights Act...as I have shown you on another blog the voting records of congress don't support your claim.
What about MLK, Malcolm X, and yes the BPP without whom there would have been nothing more than the original act; lip service that was never enforced by local or federal officials. It was your people who made the dream happen, you know those pitiful always looking for a handout black folk.
You sir have existed throughout our history. There were blacks who called Frederick Douglas a trouble maker, even accusing him of lying about being a slave. Marcus Garvey had Dubois putting him down at every turn because he believed in intergration rather than assimilation. There were blacks who called MLK, Malcolm X, and the BPP divisive and glory seekers. The great Morehouse College refused to give MLK a honorary degree because they claimed he was too controversial.
Yet when history looks back on all these great men, those who stood against now pretend to have supported them. I wonder if 30 years from now you will be claiming your support for Obama like those before you.
I am however going to end my input into this conversation with your statement implying that Reagan has done more for Blacks than the BPP. We have reached a point of absurd attempts at justification that go beyond basic logic. Reagan has the blood of hundreds of thousands of blacks on his hands and you actually attempt to justify him with personal responsibility or bend your fingers to compare him to the BPP.
SOBF, I'm not really to concerned how you describe me or what you call me, what I'm concerned with is how it tends to lessen the weight of your arguments which I consider worthwhile. That's the reason for my statement.
When anyone walks into my house one of the first things they will notice is a picture of Frederick Douglass. Did he free the slaves? With all his eloquence he did not and could not free the slaves. It was Pres. Lincoln's executive order which we call the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. Did Douglass influence this? Without a doubt he was the greatest influence for freedom. I agree with you that "Douglass pushed Lincoln's hand" but without Lincoln slavery would have continued.
As far as the Civil Rights Acts are concerned they were all Republican Bills, the first (1866), the second (1957) and the third (1964). By sheer numbers the northern Democrats cast the most votes for the 1964 version as a percentage Republicans cast the most votes in favor. Since the Democrats had majorities in both houses of congress there would be no way Republicans would cast more votes numerically. Those Republicans who did not cast votes in favor complained because it did not go far enough, hence the need for a voting rights act.
I do criticize blacks that I don't agree with, should I just accept everything someone with the same color skin as I have says for that reason alone? Rev. King was the greatest of the 20th Century Freedom Fighters, Malcolm X was a mixed bag and the BPP were "revolutionary nationalist" (Newton) which I disagree with. I think that the most brilliant blacks today are on the right and I would criticize them too if I found reason. I'm speaking of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Colin Powell and yes Michael Steele. Don't worry, when I decided to stick to my principles and not vote for Pres. Obama, I knew I could never go back no matter what he did. The way things look now I'll have no regrets.
I have no idea why you have such an allegiance to the BPP but as absurd as you find it I'm convinced that Reagan did more good than they did.
Right Black - In the likeness of Dubois, you choose a plethora of assimilation peddlers as the leaders in the black community. When will you guys learn that assimilation is the vehicle by which the black man is neutered, unable to stand up to injustice? Before I go any further let me make certain that not only you but all of those reading these comments have a true understanding of the differences between “assimilation” and “integration”.
Assimilation: The process whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture.
Integration: The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation.
What race or ethnic group joined American society through assimilation, “None”. Don't you think there is reason assimilation is considered more palatable than integration when it comes to blacks in America? Jews integrated into American society by way of Nationalistic principles, as did the Italian, Greek, and Asian people. Hispanics have passed blacks economically based on their nationalistic approach to economics. They started their businesses and hired one another developing their own economic independence before they fully integrated into American culture. If the black community had been allowed to continue its growth during the early 20th century there would have been no civil rights movement. Race riots during the summer of 1919 (whites attacking blacks) across this country decimated black communities, communities that included black owned hospitals, businesses, and banks. Institutions that if allowed to continue would have established a base for black integration into American society. This is why I have a great deal of respect for the likes of Malcolm, Garvey, and Newton, because these visionaries understood that the only true opportunity for equality for the black American was based in Nationalism.
All this is said to make one point. While assimilation theology exists in the liberal left political realm, nationalism is non-existent on the conservative right. Most blacks have a nationalistic approach to solving the problems faced by the black community and thus find no place in the conservative party. This is the value that separates blacks from the conservative party and it is more important than ones beliefs in abortion or gay marriage. While we can agree that liberal politics has its problems (especially with black representation) the reality is that little hope is better than no hope and blacks will cling to the party that gives it the best opportunity to realize its independence not its dependency.
Again - Give examples of how Reagan did more good than the BPP.
Right Black - I almost forgot to address the civil rights voting record. During the time the vote was cast it was a foregone conclusion that it would receive little or no support from southern politicians on either side of the isle and the vote supports this. However, when you look at the votes from the North, Democrats seemed to support the civil rights act at a much larger rate.
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
SOBF, I'm glad we finally got to this point. Your are correct that anyone who reads this will get great clarification to our differences.
You act as if assimilation and integration thought is mutually exclusive thus setting up a false dichotomy. I agree with your definitions and answer yes to both. I'm for American culture (assimilation) with true integration.
As far as Black Nationalism is concerned, those on this side are just as racist as any white racists. I can agree with some of what BN promotes such as pride and unity among blacks, self-love, self-reliance, self-pride, etc. These are also Republican and American principles. I'm not for bigotry, anti-Semitism, violence against white Americans as most Black Nationalists promote. Who promotes this? I'm sure you will ask, the Nation of Islam, especially Minister Farrakan and Khallid Muhammad (a man I have been watching since the Million Man March). There he stated that whatever is wrong with Black America "you find the long hairy hand of the white man working the machinations somewhere behind the scenes." This is a victim mentality which I totally reject. He has also said, "Never will I say I am not anti-Semitic."
This is not the year 1910 but 2010 and America has come a long way to realizing our creed that all people are created equal. Even being able to elect Pres. Obama proves this.
You state that Jews, Italians, Greeks and Asians have a nationalistic approach but I would say they are different in many respects. They do not advocate the extermination of all white people as some Black Nationalist do. They endorse a strong ethnic community as well as the assimilation into America as a whole. All of the above groups except the Jews were glad to be here and came freely. The Jews were looking for a homeland to return to and many did when Israel became a nation. If BNs want to establish a nation, I say, "go for it," it's called Liberia, it exists, raise money and leave but don't sit and complain, you can move, your not a tree.
I have no idea why a black nationalistic group would look for and expect acceptance in the party of slavery. They are using you to get and keep power! You may not like conservatives or Republicans but at least you get what you see and are not being used as a voting block. In my party I'm a person with individual ideas just as I am among my black brothers.
I don't even think it is useful at this point to discuss Reagan, he is not the issue the whole BN philosophy is. At this point we can't even agree on what the good is.
Of course, you will throw out the south when it comes to the Civil Rights Bill. Fine, have it your way, be in denial but I know that the south voted too and those numbers are easily found. The bill was authored by a Republican with some Democrats as co-signers.
Finally, you have accused me many times of using ancient history when it doesn't work for your argument. Now I'm saying to you that you are living in ancient history. I vote for assimilation and integration. You're welcome to come along.
Right Black - You made one tremendous error in your entire observation regarding Black Nationalism. NOI is a religious organization that uses nationalism as part of their teachings. They also teach hate, and racism, but that is unique to NOI. They are black supremacist naturally drawn to nationalism like white supremacist naturally drawn to conservatism. You have taken a group that isolates itself and its thinking and put them together with a Black Nationalist movement that is in no way connected to them. Malcolm didn't truly understand the power of nationalism until after his trip to Mecca and we both know that his opinion towards whites changed dramatically after that trip.
You may want to check your facts on Liberia also for they have been under the thumb of the US Government for decades. Ever since they became the clearing house for blood diamonds and began to grow economically at a rate that became worrisome to the international community. You ever wonder why no black nation has ever grown into a world power? I guess you believe that it’s simply because they are stupid and corrupt.
SOBF, Enlighten me, ol' wise one. What BN group do you belong to that is not either religious or hate based. The description I gave above can also be used to describe "Christian" Black Liberation Theology as well, that is why Farrakan is welcome among them. I only used the NOI because they are the group most reported on. Maybe Rev. Wright wasn't speaking hate in those famous clips we saw?
Malcolm was in NOI therefore he was a BN from the start as this was the concept even if Fard didn't use the words BN. As I have stated all of their concepts are not wrong, it is only those bad apples in their concepts that spoil the whole.
I only used Liberia because it was formed for former American slaves, you can choose the African country of your choice.
I'm sure you don't think I believe blacks are stupid, or what would I be saying about us? Corrupt, not all but some. But being smart and having integrity doesn't necessarily make one a world power. It is much more complex than this. Will there ever be an African country that is a world power. I believe so! When, I don't know. But today an "African-American" is ruling the worlds largest and strongest world power, whether I like him or not. He is a very intelligent man who just happens to be making a lot of wrong decisions. I think he can't help but make bad decisions because his worldview is wrong. Intelligence does not equal wisdom and I have met plenty of wise, intelligent black men.
BLT is racist - did you ever really watch Rev. Wrights blurbs on the news? Go to youtube and look very closley and you will see whites in the congregation. The covenant was a nationalist movement. (no religion, no hate) Black Nationalism has nothing to do with the white population, it deals with the black population and yes religion is not a cornerstone of nationalism. Personally, I believe that any black person that practices christianity still suffers from the brainwashing of slavery. Blacks were indoctrinated into christianity, baptised by slave traders prior to be thrown in the dungeons. Christianity being the only reason they were allowed to gather in groups. Christianity being the justification for the act itself. Then we take it turn it around and try to make it something positive in our lives and community. How weak minded we are to not understand that religion is practiced throughout the world using the same foundations as christianity but tailored to the belief system of each culture.
My nationalism has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion, nor is it a tool of hatred. It is actually a tool of equality and independence, the two things that will allow us to live in this society without carrying the baggage of the past.
Yes, BLT is racist! I don't care who was in the audience, I care what was said. Cone was a racist, reactionary, socialist. This is his invention due to Malcolm X saying that Christianity is a white man's religion. Of course, Christianity is not a white man's religion. It existed long before the first white man came to America. Some of the early church fathers were believed to be black such as St. Augustine. Caucasian and Jews alike consider Jewish people not to be white. Jesus was a Jew and again this means that Christianity is not a white man's religion. Jesus stated that it doesn't matter whether one is Jewish or not, male or female we are all the same in Jesus. It is due to Christianity that there was even a conflict between the slave holders and the abolitionist. The slave holders took the Bible and found verses they liked, took them out of context and made excuses for themselves. The abolitionist said, "no" you are incorrect. This "white man's" religion is the same religion Frederick Douglass used to influence Pres. Lincoln. You may call it weak but it was strong enough to free you.
If your nationalism has nothing to do with religion or hate than it is the only one out there and you are the only one I know subscribing to it but it is not the only "tool of equality and independence." It may be the only way you can see but over 2000 years ago Jesus Christ showed all mankind the true way to equality and independence. Again, you are welcome to join me in being truly free.
Right,
Personally, I believe you did a good job. You also hit on a topic that Democrat's (SOBF-Deeds)are scared of. The hand-out entitlement has not worked. If poverty rises you only add more to the rolls. More in the rolls means take more from those not on the rolls.
It is the way "Progressives" operate.
Let's forget the past; what is best for people NOW! Will hand-outs help? History says NO!
Good job.
Harvey Stelman, Thanks for the encouragement. After contending with SOBF and Deeds for some time it is nice to have a comment from someone in agreement. Thanks again.
Harvey - You know better than to use that phrase in a conversation in which I am involved.
"Will hand-outs help? History says NO!"
Isreal was built on a handout bro...
Right Black – Let me get this straight, I was freed by Christianity! Oh how hard it is for me to reframe from using an obscenity at this point. I was enslaved by Christianity and freed because my enslavers where the tougher lot. A history lesson again. Lincoln freed the slaves because the North was losing the war and the only chance they had was the participation of both free and enslaved blacks. Frederick Douglas who was of MLK status at the time refused to encourage such participation without a commitment that slaves would be freed in return for offering their lives on behalf of the Union. Now if you want to somehow suggest that God gave the south the power to defeat the North knowing that this would influence Lincoln to sign the emancipation proclamation it is the only way you can make your argument that I was freed by Christianity.
Abolitionists while working to free the slaves still thought of them as inferior beings, something that Frederick Douglas constantly points out in all his writings. Christianity was forced on the Black population as a form of control (brainwashing) that to this day is used to manipulate and control much of the black population. We were baptized prior to being thrown into dungeons as chattel, then forced to attend church services of indoctrination into this great religion. Reading, writing, and congregating for any reason was completely outlawed but Christianity was accepted. The same church denominations that promoted slavery were the same denominations attended by abolitionist. Thus the same money that supported the abolitionist church supported the slave holder’s church.
Jesus saved me like he is now saving Africa – stealing its valuable treasures and sending them Europe to be sold to the highest bidder. Christians teaching Africans to be patient and loving of those who come to steal their natural resources leaving them poverty in return, while pimping that same poverty as their cause. Right Black – how often have you come across a white congregation being led by a black pastor? Growing up in the church I know this to be a extremely rare occurrence while the opposite is extremely common.
SOBF, I'm glad you didn't use any obscenities but the facts remain that Douglass' arguments were based on his Christian beliefs. I'm glad you have come to my point of view that Lincoln did in fact free the slaves. I happen to agree with you that the slaves were freed in order to win the war and we both know that Lincoln would have used any means necessary to preserve the Union. I am glad you understand the argument of how God uses human events to work his purposes. I firmly believe that God meant to preserve the Union and free the slaves. How could we have survived half free and half slave?
Whether abolitionist believe in blacks human equality is not an issue for me. I think some did and some didn't but their Christian beliefs compelled them to do what they did, this is what matters to me. You can call Christianity brainwashing if you like but to me it is brain cleansing. Cleansing from the hate that makes one treat his human brother different from the way he wishes to be treated.
I'm not sure what you understand about denominations but most churches are independent and belong to denominations as a point of theology. I don't find anywhere that a denomination in the north supported slavery. Did certain southern churches and pastors supported slavery, of course. I know that the church is not perfect, I don't walk around with rose colored glasses on but when I read the actual words contained in the Bible these words are truth, just and good. These words are what freed the slaves. If Lincoln had had no Christian influence he would have had no reason to believe slavery wrong and no reason to go to war. The south would have never left the Union because slavery would not have been an issue with Lincoln. We could actually boil the whole war down to a difference between true Christian beliefs (abolitionists) and false (slave holders).
Unfortunately for mankind we don't get to boss Jesus around. He would be a very small god if we could. Africa will be delivered when God sees fit, not when we demand.
In California I notice that the congregations tend to mirror the neighborhoods they are in not the color of the pastors. When the neighborhoods are fairly integrated then the pastor could be any race. When the neighborhoods are segregated they tend to have a pastor of that race. I have never attended a church that was predominately black with a white pastor. This doesn't mean they don't exist. I have been to a church that was fairly integrated with a hispanic pastor.
Did I sense a bit of anti-semitism in your answer to Harvey? You know Harvey is an American not an Israeli.
Right Black – I make a statement to Harvey that is based in fact and I’m anti-Semitic, but he makes statements relating to blacks that are false and misleading and he’s a good guy. WOW! Harvey has been preaching the Jews did it without a handout theology based in makes believe, therefore I clarified the truth behind Israel and West Germany’s funding in Jewish growth.
Now on this God and freedom thing, first according to Douglas’s writings his commitment to see all slaves free was based solely on his life as a slave. Are you suggesting that Douglas would have not fought for the freedom of slaves had he not been a Christian? What a logical argument. Now for Gods orchestration of the civil war and his assistance in giving the south the upper hand with the intention of freeing the slaves. WOW again! You mean he waited all that time, allowed men, women, and children to be mutilated, raped, murdered, and just plain worked to death just to get to the right moment in time. I guess next you will claim that God actually orchestrated the entire slave trade with the following master plan. African’s held in indentured servitude would be brutally transported to the new world, forced to work in what has been documented as the most brutal level of slavery ever seen for generations in order to find freedom 300 years later. He may be an all powerful God, but his timing surely sucks. I also question his planning capabilities.
SOBF, first of all I'm not privileged to know all of the debates you and Harvey have had, just sounded strange to me.
If you read "Life and Times of Frederick Douglass" he goes into great detail about his conversion to Christianity when he was a slave and how this shaped his whole worldview. He knew once he became a Christian that he had to escape to freedom. This is what made him an abolitionist, his reading of the Bible. I have read his autobiography through three times and am currently reading it with my children after dinner. His life is one of the most impressive I've ever read. Yes it is a logical argument, a persons worldview will affect a persons actions. If you look into the life of each white or black abolitionist you will find that all of them had a strong belief in God that directly affected their actions. Have you ever wondered if maybe your view of God is correct? God has given people freedom and he works his will through their freedom. People have to choose to do God's will, He works on each individual. Until enough people are changed men will cause other men to suffer. God did not wait, men waited. God works his will through people. The story of God and man starts in the Garden of Eden and man decided to disobey not God. You see God didn't plan slavery nor did He plan the timing of emancipation. You are confusing power with knowledge. Did God know these things would happen yes, did he cause them no. God has all power to do all things that power will do. God cannot make a square circle, it is not something that power does, it is illogical. God works through individual men and women. If God made us do anything we would be robots not people. People have freedom and for God to make us do things is illogical. All this being said God had at least two individuals (Douglass and Lincoln) who were willing to do the right thing at that time and end slavery. So God's timing doesn't suck but man's certainly does.
Right Black - Its funny because his accounts in My bondage, My freedom gives credit to his coming across a editorial written by an abolitionist to which he realized that there was another world outside of slavery and his near death beating by slave master. Yes, he was a christian but I have already pointed out that Christianity was key in the indoctrination of Africans therefore everyone was a christian.
The fact that Douglass held on to this indoctrination in no way makes the religion valid, nor does it give God credit for the freedom of slaves. How do you explain the great works done around the world by those of other religious beliefs. Was Ghandi a failure because he was not a christian or were there silent prayers by Christians that made his peace movement successful?
SOBF, I never stated that Douglass didn't have multiple reasons for becoming an abolitionist but it would be impossible for him to be an activist abolitionist and a slave. You see his Christianity is what compelled him to escape and is what compelled him once he heard about the abolitionist movement to get involved. People act upon their worldviews.
The indoctrination rhetoric is just that rhetoric with no substance. Christians believe in Jesus Christ because of the truth claims that have been validated due to evidence. Jesus was born of a virgin: even the Jews of the day claimed he was of illegitimate birth. Jesus lived and preached in Israel and the vicinity: Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus confirm this. Jesus was crucified, died, was buried and rose for the grave: the new testament points this out and those who put him to death did not dispute these facts. Also, no one has come up with the corpse of Jesus. The door of the tomb was opened not to let Jesus out but to let men in to see the proof of this miracle. What you describe as indoctrination is based on truth and fact.
I have no argument with the great work Ghandi did in India. Many religions have borrowed from the truth of the Judeo-Christian religion. The need for God goes back to the Garden of Eden and all truth comes from the same God and this God has revealed himself through is Son. Ghandi was successful because of the principles he used not because of the religion.
My question to you is show me any truly successful peace movement that achieved its goal and did not involve religion? Your argument seemed to be with all religions not just Christianity.
Right Black - Hinduism borrowed from truth of the Judeo-Christian faith? I think not, Hinduism was on the books long before the Bible was even a thought. Therefore if any religion based itself on the other it would have had to been Christianity.
To answer your question, every movement positive and negative will have religion at the root of its motivation. You are wrong in your assumption that I have a problem with all religions, my problem is only with Christianity. I actually believe in God, however my trust in the European written word will only allow me to go that far. You see belief any further requires blind faith and I have little faith in a European system that destroyed the noses of Egyptian Gods to hide their blackness, used their new found scriptures to rob the riches of other cultures, and sold salvation as slavery. If any man were to inflict upon you the injustices done by the Christian nation would you have blind faith in his teachings?
SOBF, seems that you have a misconception of the Bible. First, the Bible is not European in origin but Middle Eastern. Second, it doesn't matter whether Hinduism was the first "on the books." The Jews had a verbal tradition which Moses wrote down that went all the way back to "In the beginning God created." The Jews believe (and have not be proven wrong) that this tradition goes all the way back to the first man and woman. Therefore, all other religions follow after the Jewish religion. Third, all movements do not have religion at the roots. Communism is an atheistic movement, no religion. Fourth, as far as the European destroying the noses of the Sphinx in Egypt, you are confusing the truth of the religion with the actions of fallible human beings. My trust is not in any European system but the God of the Universe who revealed Himself through the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and proved these scriptures to be true by sending His Son to die for me and once He died he rose again in order to prove He had the power to save me from Eternal Death and separation from God. I don't think that anyone has inflicted upon you any injustice based upon "TRUE" Christianity, if there have been injustices in the name of Christianity it was done those who are not true believers.
Right Black the begining of any religion is the creation of man. Therefore, all religions are the first religion if you are going to base your assumptions on the scriptures. If you believe the scriptures of the bible then you must believe that all the original characters from the old testament were of black skin, for genetics have proven that the original (first) human had to be negroid while all other races came about from the Africans navigation of the world. Therefore it is mind boggling that the original Christians (Adam & Eve) failed at passing on the word of God to through their generations. Would not Africa been one of the greatest Christian nations of all if this were true? When in fact Christians (from Europe) evangelised Africa as did Muslims. Both just before enslaving or colonizing them. How was it that the disciples of Jesus who went out in every direction miss the black nations when spreading the gospel? Maybe they did but Africans were too ignorant to comprehend the scriptures - instead following their vodoo rituals and satanic beliefs. You beieve in Christianity because you were raised in a culture that reinforced it, the same as those who believe in Islam or any other religion.
SOBF, sorry but again you are mistaken. The very religion you said "was on the books long before the Bible" does not have a story of man's creation. It does have an allegory of the earth's creation but stops short of the most important creation of all, man. In fact here is what the Veda says about the creation of man:
Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.
-Rig Veda 10:129
Furthermore, Islam borrows it's creation story from the Bible as does Mormonism. Let's just say, for arguments sake, that all religions have the same creation story (even though I think this is not so) this in and of itself proves that Hinduism being "on the books long before the Bible" does not matter. I will go back to the truth claims in each book. The Bible is historically accurate. Every time a geologist in the middle east makes another find it consistently proves the Bible historically accurate.
Most scholars affirm that the original man was probably a person of color. Most would say that the origin of man was somewhere around the River Euphrates. Why would the author of the Genesis omit this? Maybe since they all looked alike there would not have been a need to say? The Bible does mention race, right in the book of love, Song of Solomon, it says," I am black but lovely,O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon." Song of Solomon 1:5 How could this be, it is a European religion, right?
There were large populations of Christians in Africa, unless you think Ethiopia and Egypt are not in Africa. Which apostles went to these places? Bartholomew, Matthias, Simon the Zealot and Jude author of the book that bears his name.
Finally, do I believe in Christianity because it was the culture I was raise in? Maybe I do partially, but does that prove it to be wrong? I also believe in Christianity because of the truth claims it makes, these correspond with reality.
Ralph Deeds captured the Liberal mindset when he said, "Without the Democrats...... African Americans would not have been able to advance." You, Deeds, are implying that blacks can't compete on a level playing field, such as that offered by the Republican platform. Your social programs are the new slavery, Jack Ass.
Tex, thanks for picking out this point in Ralph's response. Democrats have always thought blacks were inferior that is why they were the party of slavery, secession and segregation. Since these three have failed they have adopted a forth "s," socialism.
I think both Right Black and SOBF have some valid points. But the problem I see is that blacks vote Democrat out of inertia at this point. There are reasons why they started, and we can argue why, but I think both would agree that inertia is a huge reason at this point. So, I would like for both sides to answer this question then: what would it take for blacks to change their mind and vote Republican? As a white man, if I lived in a predominately black congressional district (which I do) and I were to run as a Republican (which I am not), how could I make inroads to the black community?
Concerned Repub, unfortunately the only way for a Republican to get elected in a black congressional district is to fake being a Democrat and switching after the fact. I don't recommend this dishonest tactic but that is the only way I see it happening at present. What needs to happen is a good healthy debate but why would the Democrats debate when there is no threat? They have the power. Therefore, the Republican solutions to crime, taxes and the lack of wealth in the black community are not even heard. This is because Republicans are never heard. When a Republican does get a moment to speak and says something intelligent and of worth that person is immediately shouted down and called names, such as Uncle Tom. Would you vote for or want to follow someone who is seen as a subservient fool?
The solution for Republicans is not worry about the black vote for now and let the few of us black Republicans dialogue as best we can. Pretty bleak outlook, sorry, but that's the way I see it as long as the Democrats have control of the educational systems in the inner city. If you have noticed the inner city was taken over by Democrats about 40 years ago and are in ruins today. They are against vouchers for students. The students could then use these educational dollars the way they wish. You see, the Democrats think blacks are stupid and will not use this money correctly. Correctly means (in Democratic terms) to continue the revisionist education of the last 40 years. The money should be used to pay administrators who fail the students. The money should be used to make sure blacks are illiterate and drop out of school to continue the cycle of crime, imprisonment and death. They continue to lie, cheat and steal from these neighborhoods and tell us it's the Republicans who are to blame, when they have had local control the entire time. What can be done? Nothing short of re-education and unfortunately it doesn't seem to be a quick process.
Right Black,
Unlike Ralph and SOBF I think you wrote an excellent piece. Being of European Jewish decent, European immigrants were steered to the Democratic Party. They gave the immigrants money and jobs; sound familiar?
As the years go by I have seen some (like myself) turn from the Democrat's, they have moved away from me. Work hard, earn money and give it away. I don't get it! The U.S. is the most charitable country in the world; doesn't that say anything?
Harvey, glad someone out there gets it. It's the new Democratic slavery tactic. It's good, those enslaved don't even know it. Thanks, Harvey.
Right Black,
The leftist don't want people to think for themselves, they want people to THINK they are open minded.
Harvey, you give them a lot of credit. I think it is the same tactic that was used during slavery. That is, not only should you not think but you can't think, they want you to leave that up to them. In other words, you are not intelligent enough to know what to think so let us help you in your ignorance.
I have learnt so much about Democrat politics and rationale from this hub thank you for your insight and thank you all for all the insightful comments. So many valid points about the left operates and controls the mind and gives the perception that is the right that does it. You got people thinking with this hub and that is half the battle!
billyaustindillon, I try to think my positions over carefully and my hubs help me to solidify my opinions. I left emotionalism behind many years ago and have found that if I have to change my opinion on a subject it is easier to do without having so much emotion involved. I hope this comes out in my writing. Thanks for the comment.
Well, looks like you found a controversial subject here my friend...I lost my train of thought of what I was going to leave as a comment when reading some of your other comments left by others....Man Alive! I have discovered some theories here that I never really thought of till now by reading your hub....I think you make a very firm & valid points here & I am going to have to agree with you! I think the whole political system just about feeds on some form of manipulation, control, & brainwashing others & especially minorities & the smaller man....You won me over Right Black! I'm a new fan....Thanks for sharing your strong mind!
Michael Shane, controversy, no. Okay, maybe just a little. Welcome to the fold. Thanks for your comments.
"True. Michigan Republicans are circulating all kinds of racist jokes and cartoons. For example a cartoon of a huge White House walk-refrigerator completely full of watermelons with Obama at the door. "
ALL Michigan Republicans, obviously. Probably most of the Indiana Republicans, Ohio Republicans and Wisconsin Republicans also. I think they got a grant.
nicomp, of course there is no solid proof nor can there be that "true" or "all" of anyone does anything. To the contrary, reports say, (Jason)"Levin has said he would seek to embarrass Tea Partiers by attending their rallies dressed as Adolf Hitler, carrying signs bearing racist, sexist and anti-gay epithets and acting as offensively as possible -- anything short of throwing punches." Before he took down his website it said the following, "Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which will exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them" This from a Democrat but this is not a new or original tactic it is also reported that, "a couple of Michigan Democrats at a health care town hall meeting were shocked to find an African American passing out pamphlets depicting Obama dressed as Hitler. Later, they saw this same man working for Democratic Congressman John Dingell, who was hosting the meeting. Clearly this man was part of an organized effort to subvert and discredit the opposition to ObamaCare." Interesting?
@Right Black: The trick here is to sucker people into blaming the organization for the bizarre behavior of a few.
nicomp, you are correct. When policy fails make the other guy look evil.
The democracts would rather give a dog a bone then let him stand like a man and be equal.
Williamjordan, "equal," that's the word! The only way to truly be equal is to through off the mental shackles and as my father use to say to me, "be a man." Thanks for the comment.
I think most African Americans vote for democrats out of a sense of solidarity. And they've been convinced that republicans are racists. I wish they'd listen to what's being said now about the Mexican illegal immigrants - said by democrats. 'America needs gardeners and housekeepers'. And then there's the fact that our children are not being taught what they need to learn in the schools, especially in the inner cities, and yet the unions want to shut down the charter schools, which ARE teaching the children. In the end, though, I think we have to blame just about every politician in Washington for the mess this country is in. Extremists have taken over both parties, and it's time for moderates to vote them out by voting new people in.
sheila b., thanks for your opinion. I'm not sure that extremists have taken over both parties but I am sure that the Democrats take the black vote for granted. I also believe that the average black voter is the "what have you done for me lately vote." That is the kind of vote that doesn't help America. It doesn't even help those who vote that way. It is a new way of enslaving, there is no freedom when the government takes care of your "problems" for you. They then hold the power to dictate what you can and cannot do. As far as school is concerned our schools are just halls of indoctrination. America does need gardeners and housekeepers, they just need to be in this country legally no matter whether they are white, brown, yellow, red or black. There is nothing wrong with any job as long as a person makes an honest living. We all started at the bottom. America is a ladder, so just because you start at the bottom doesn't mean that is where you have to end up.
Right Black, thank you for your insight. My husband and I are two white people among a church full of black Democratic voters. Our church is one of the most conservative-thinking group of people you could ever find, yet the majority of them voted for Obama and other Democratic politicians. I don't understand it. One of my friends said she was always taught to vote Democrat so that's what she does. When I asked her why, she didn't really have an answer except that it was the Democrats who fought for civil rights and who still fight for the rights of the black man. I was quick to educate her on who really passed the CR bill, but I doubt that really changed her mind. Like someone already said, I think it's a generational thing. And as you said, only the Republican black man can change the cycle. Cuz they sure won't listen to me. We may live in a time where all people have the same rights, but racism is still just as prevalent in certain regards. And as far as welfare goes, that program has to be the worst program the Dems could have ever introduced to the black population. I know not all blacks are on welfare, and not all those who receive welfare are black. But the majority is, and I think it does them a disservice. As you said, the men knock a girl up and then leave her cuz they know she can just get welfare. And how many of them actually have an incentive to work as long as they continue getting money from the government? Not too many that I know of. And yes, you're right. If some of these men would actually stick around and take care of the babies they create, they wouldn't have time to roam the streets and get into trouble. What it really comes down to though is that they need Jesus. But then I can't really say that either. As I said about my church, they all have Jesus yet they still vote as if they didn't. When will the cycle end?
RestoreAmerica'sFreedom, thanks so much for your comment.Unfortunately, this problem is growing deeper each day. The third generation of blacks afflicted with the Democratic only disease is being born as we speak. I live in a community which is only 2% Black but the disease is alive and well. A handsome black high school young man met a beautiful immigrant from France. He immediately showed her how love in America works by getting her pregnant and leaving. She is my next door neighbor. My wife and I told our church small group about her and got her some prenatal care and counseling from a Christian non-profit pregnancy center. If you believe the Democrats, this will be another fatherless black baby. Never mind that the mother is white because to have one drop of black blood makes you black. That's the way it always was and has been with the party of slavery. We are trying to slowly introduce the young lady and her mother to the gospel, yes they need Jesus. When will the cycle end? When blacks figure out that the soft slavery of the Democrats is still slavery and not until.
Absolutely fantastic hub! Your tolerance is commendable!
pcoach, thanks for the comment and compliment.
Thank god this planet has you Right Black. How did you end up being so cool. Your awesome keep up the good work! :)
XuRiaN, wow, thanks for the compliment.
Round of applause. Excellent. My dad calls welfare "the new slavery." As a person who pays the average American salary in TAXES every year, nothing gets my blood boiling more than seeing yet another patient of mine use breeding as a means of estate planning. When I was told in my teens to "work smarter not harder" I did both, and since I am not a lottery winner, I've got some contentions about taking care of the "little people." Disability, and mental illness aside, the government shouldn't be anyone's daddy. The impoverished in other countries make you want to give them any and every thing. The poor in America make you want to wring their necks. Non-American poor--hard-working, grateful, family-oriented. American poor--entitled, thankless, and can be dismissive of just basic family values. I'm speaking in generalities, and of course there are many poor, hard-working families in the US who are dedicated to each other. But I've been working with the public for years, and the overwhelming majority come into the hospital smacking their gum, unemployed, wearing the latest thing on the rack, having children outside of marriage, (or even a committed relationship), they can not afford, with their hands out! It's unreal. And it crosses every racial line. Right on, Right Black! I love this!
ahostagesituation, thanks for your comment. Your father sounds like a very wise man. I think that we could eliminate the current recession if we would just give incentives for creating new businesses, such as tax cuts or a tax holiday for people who create new businesses. If this was done for minorities this could be a way of teaching wealth creation instead of dependancy. The problem with this solution is that the liberals might loose their base voters. Thanks for the comment.
Thanks, Right Black. My dad is one very wise man, with a great story about overcoming a great deal to succeed financially. The only thing worse than the government teaching people dependence is the government teaching people dependence with a false sense of independence. If I meet one more person who thinks their "Independence" card is somehow not a hand-out to keep them dependent I will lose my mind. Keep writing! --SJ
ahostagesituation, so well said, what a great point. Thanks for your wisdom.
Right Black, you are BLOWING my mind right now. This subject has long interested me and you have provided insight that helps me to understand yet feel so helpless. I'm called a racist because I agree with the TEA PARTY. I was told I was racist because I didn't vote for Obama. Then I get on here and I see you facing the same issues. You are a conservative so you are an Uncle Tom? What? A black person gets educated and learns about history and they've sold out to the white man? It saddens me to see this amongst people of the same race. You have my upmost respect and I would love to have you in my Facebook group. I could greatly use your knowledge base in my fight to get my black friends to see the light.
Gleezda, thanks for the compliment and comment. I understand that people of the same race can and should disagree and that is my problem. When over 90% of any ethnic group thinks exactly alike on an issue something is terribly wrong. Sorry, but I don't do Facebook, I leave that venue open for my wife and kids.
You evidently seek wisdom right - even if that is only my opinion. Thank you for clear thinking!
frogyfish, thanks for the comment and complement.
I tripped over this website wondering why blacks are predominantly Democrat. What a great venue. little history here from me.....White,50ish,Republican for now.Growing up in the 60's was volatile. As a child, my father was the classic underachiever, who blamed everything on the blacks. When he wasn't doing that he was beating on my mom.In my adolescent years, I cannot count the lectures he gave me on the up and coming black race and how our government was short changing my future.I remember him being an avid Wallace supporter. This was about the time I was in MiddleSchool and the first time I had ever interacted with blacks. Up to this point by the wonderful upbringing I had, I thought blacks were to be subservient to me and on that premise I recall making a racial slur to one.This is where reality set in. Much to my surprise I was threatened only and not physically beat down. The second surprise was that the other white students did not back me but rather chastised me for my behavior. Man, I was confused. After apologizing and feeling completely alone I had a long journey ahead of me. What was wrong with my fathers' advice? What happens now? Well, fences were mended, I became friends with blacks but on the homefront nothing changed. By 15 I challenged my father on issues. As you can guess it was a no win resolution. Now I was being threatened by my father.In High School, busing blacks from across town had began. The violence was unprecedented and unprovoked. These kids had a chip on their shoulder. Our local police had a substation in one of our classrooms it was so bad. Not only did this fuel my fathers anger I was wavering again on my views of blacks. Looking back, I can't blame the blacks one bit. Time heals wounds and by my senior year we were all cool by the most part with each other. I spent a lot of time with my black supervisors from work off the clock running the town. I have fond memories of that time. People of different colors and cultures partying and getting along. Then adulthood came along, along with raising a family, holding down a job, paying taxes and politics. Somewhere in those years something went awry as far as racial progress was concerned. it seems to me we're going backwards again to pre-50's mentality. When is this crap going to stop? IMO, people like Jackson, Sharpton, and Farrakan are poisoning the black community with their venom and are holding their people back. To me, they preach that everything to a black person has to be "black" or its wrong. Its as if the black person has been denied their own mode of thinking or personality. Not to promote racial profiling or stereotyping I have to say the black community makes it easy for these instruments to prevail because of the afore mentioned statements. This leads me to believe that is why blacks are predominantly Democrat now adays.....its a black thing. For the sake of your people and future, believe me, you are short changing yourselves severely. You have fought your way out of slavery, earned your keep, had doors opened up for you.....don't throw it away by imprisoning yourselves again. America is the land of opportunity. It is the country where you can be anything you want to be. Why on earth would you set the goal at mediocrity for your children?
RB,
I have found the exchange between you and SOBF to be one of the most fascinating debates I have ever read. You so eloquently defended ALL Americans. Your calm and common sense approach speaks volumes of your character. This is the kind of Character that ALL Americans (despite race) should strive to carry. I truly believe that is the main trait that would build the kind of bridges that would bring us ALL together as AMERICANS. How refreshing and encouraging it would be, if we all could see things as clearly and truthfully as you have demonstrated. I think your "role" model; Fredrick Douglas has motivated you to speak this kind of truth. His words, "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." is exactly what, to me, seems to be the jest of your whole "idealism" for the people of this country.
And I want to tell you, YOU have motivated me, more than you will ever know. To stand up for the "common sense" approach to what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.
THIS, is a fantastic Hub, and I deeply appreciate it!
Oh me, I hate to see people debate the Bible but to each his own. I'd blow your mind if I told you the ephiphany I had. In short, everybody has it wrong and has had it wrong since the inception of the Old Testament. I cannot enter a church or synagogue now and allow myself to listen to their misguidance and/or ignorance of the message that is really trying to be betrayed.Don't get me wrong, I'm not atheist or agnostic.I know Jesus Christ has a purpose and He is my Savior......the rest I will deal with if I'm wrong and have to answer for.
raisedwrong, thanks for your comment. You are proof that even if you are raised wrong you can change your opinion. It may be a black thing that most blacks are Democrat but it is lack of individuality that makes blacks do what the "group" does. If it is a black thing, I think it is a wrong thing.
CMerritt, you have left me breathless. Thanks.
raisedwrong, I would agree that we all have parts of the message wrong but many of us have part of the message right. Just because we have some of the message wrong doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss it. If we don't discuss it we will move even further from the truth. Thanks for the comment.
Wore my thumb out to the bottom so I could skip through all the half truths and BS! I for one will not vote for a party of hypocrites. It is a fact that many republicans were once on some form of government assistance. Yet now that they have made it they want to shut the door tight and say the government budget is too high. It's not too high to spend on bombs and bullets is it? Funny so-called conservatives who just want to feel rich are quick to point out that others are poor and need to pull themselves up after they have raided the coffers. I will expose more hypocrisy later I gotta go back to work.
I wish there were more brothers like you preaching this stuff. The democratic party is killing us slowly. It is sooo sad on so many levels.
NightMove, I think you misunderstand the Republican view of government assistance. Republicans think that government assistance is where you turn when you can't do any better and are between jobs, not that this is what you use to sustain your life. People should be on the road to getting out of bad situations not just complaining and staying in them. I was trying to hire some people recently and one of the people I called didn't want to come in for the interview, so I asked, "You are out of work, aren't you?" He said, "Yes but why work when the money is free." This is the kind of thought and lifestyle we are against. That kind of life leads to dependancy and if you are dependent on the Democrats to provide your meal ticket then you have just become their slave. At least they are not hypocrites they were the party of physical slavery then and they are the party of psychological slavery today.
Bob, thanks for the comment and complement. We need to fight to delivery our brothers from the trap that the Democrats have them in. I believe it can and will turnaround.
When will people realize that Republican and Democrat party only care about one color: green. The Republican party has middle class/poor white people voting against their interest and the Democratic party has middle class/poor blacks voting against their interest. It doesn't matter which side you vote for because neither gives a damn about the common man other than getting that vote. The end game is all the same.
And to RestoreAmerica'sFreedom claim that the majority of people on welfare are black that is patently false. The majority of people on welfare are white women.
Rightblack, you do realize that Christianity borrows heavily from older religions. Even the story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection can be found for figures in much older religions. "Christian" stories of miracles, other life events, and beliefs about the supernatural existed long before Judeo-Christianity was a thought in anyone's mind. Whether you want to believe it or not but the Bible was written by men who adopted religious concepts of other cultures and incorporated them into their literary works.
Get REal, thanks for your comments. You sound very jaded and angry. I hope I'm wrong. There is nothing wrong with campaign donations and people getting paid, that's capitalism. If the parties are the same then don't vote and let the rest of us decide. I'm for that, how about you?
I don't speak for Restore America's Freedom and don't really care what color the majority of welfare recipients are. The truth is that there should be less people on welfare. Take away the check and these people will have a reason to act responsibly.
As far as religion is concerned, all ancient monotheistic religions had one origin. The question is which one didn't stray from the truth? If all these religions have the same story then they must all have the same historical evidence to validate their claims. All pale in comparison to the Bible. The more the geologist dig the more they find to validate the historical claims but one thing they have yet to unearth is the body of Jesus Christ. Even the Jews of that day didn't deny his resurrection. The only ones who denied it were those who had something to loose, like their lives. Bash Christianity if you must but check for yourself, Jesus is alive.
Right Black isnt it sad when common sense cannot overcome brainwashing? The leftists in our country have entrenched themselves in our education system and one of the consequences is that many Americans cannot see what the Democrat party really is. That being a socialist organization. Norman Matton Thomas said it perfectly when he predicted that Americans would never support socialism unless it was under the guise of "liberalism". The Democrats have adopted the socialist platform just as Thomas predicted they would, and yet these fools defend these socialist policies and label those who do not as "racist", "haters" or just Republican. The ignorance is simply amazing.
PJYost68, thank you for your comments. I'm not sure that it is brainwashing, I think it is semantics. If you stipulate a different meaning to a word for those in the know and the average Joe thinks it means something else then you can control them. The Democrats are good at finding a cause and a cure, plus they are even better at hiding there result. The results are almost always failures.
I'm not jaded nor angry just aware of reality. I'm not talking about campaign donations but the larger picture that you seem to be missing. The point is that Republican and Democrat are different rooms of the same house. Neither party has the common's man interest at heart. And deluding yourself into believing one party does over the other is the reason why nothing will ever change. It's like thinking you're doing doing damage boycotting Taco Bell by eating at KFC when the reality is both are own by the same company.
You're making the assumption that people on welfare on are not acting responsibility, that they are on it as the result of their moral failings as people: addiction, unwillingness to work, lack of family values and sexual control.Are there people that abuse the system? Of course. But the FACT is the vast majority of people on welfare on there due to economic reasons and hardships. Factors like wage declines including a steep drop in the number and bargaining power of unionized workers; erosion in the value of the minimum wage; a decline in manufacturing jobs and the corresponding expansion of lower-paying service-sector employment; globalization; and increased nonstandard work, such as temporary and part-time employment are the reason the majority of people seek welfare not because they're irresponsible.
The claim that all ancient monotheistic religions have one origin is at best ignorant and at worse a blatant lie. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the only monotheistic religions and there are monotheistic religions that pre-date them. So if one were to use your own logic Christianity has veered from the "truth" because there are even older monotheistic religions. The fact is religion is man made creation and they come and go. What's to say in 1000 years Christianity won't be treated like Greek and Roman mythology? Remember they were the religions of their day.
I like how you try to be condescending with "let the rest of us decide." Haha that reminds me of the saying: The definition of insanity or sheer stupidity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.
And when political parties answer to corporations first and the people the second that's not capitalism that's a tragedy. Open your eyes!
And as far as being historically accurate the fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha’s inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha’s inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
Other archaeological discoveries haven’t just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua’s conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, “utterly destroyed all the inhabitants,” and made it a “heap forever” (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua…
…The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua’s conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by people such as yourself when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records…
You speak with your heart and conscience. Ignore the Negative. I am Latino and Republican. I know why the majority of Latino's vote Democrat. They have fallen for the Lie. Most of my people don't even know that we live in a Republic or what that means. Ignorance has been our biggest threat and we are now reaping the results. Don't ever stop speaking out. Be Blessed
Great Hub! The Democratic party is actually has a much greater history of racism than the republican party, while you would think its the opposite! You have to wonder why so many liberals are so obsessed with race? It all seems phony to me! When a great man like Clarence Thomas get nominated to the supreme court these tolerant and compassionate liberals staged a high tech lynching. The same could be said for , Condoleezza Rice, they've tried to smear her too!
GetReal, maybe the parties are different rooms of the same house but wouldn't you agree that different rooms have different uses. While they both live in the political house the Republican room is where you go when you want to better yourself for real and the Democrat room is where you go to entertain yourself and be a couch potato.
I agree that all recipients of government assistance are not lazy or any of the other things you express but those who use this assistance as a way of life are.
The real problem that I address in this article is that the Democrats talk a good game but the don't deliver. Their history and policies have been and are damaging to Black Americans. They have offered us honey laced with poison and we are dying a slow death.
As far as there being a monotheistic religion before Judaism, I agree. The Bible speaks of it, Abram brought a priest a tithe before Judah had even been born. The fact is that is the same God that is spoken of in the Bible and he is the reason that we write the year as 2011 C.E. All of this era is common to his birth.
Lola, thanks for your comment and encouragement and I have just begun to speak.
wba108@yahoo.com, thanks for the comment. You are correct many people are ignorant about the Democrats history and many more are ignorant about what they stand for today.
I applaud your efforts. I think you are expressing your genuine feelings to a legitimate issue. I have come across a quote recently that I think applies here. "...Duty is ours, results are God's." This quote is from our founding father John Quincy Adams who was dubbed the "Hellhound of Abolition" for his relentless efforts to free the slaves. (This is the guy who inspired Lincoln to end slavery.) But, I'm sure you knew that already. I guess my whole reason in making this comment is to remind your dissenters that you are merely performing your Christian' duty. God doesn't command us to fix everything. He does tell us not to ignore the 'fallen nature of man.' None of us are perfect-we are living in a sin-stained world. Although, I don't necessarily see eye to eye on every word you typed, I agree with your intent. It has taken awhile to read through most of this hubpage interaction. So by now, I can't seem to draw together all my thoughts without rambling. I just thought it would be nice to receive one more positive response amongst all this negativity.
RealityCheck4U, thanks for the comment. Here is a quote for you, "Whenever two people think exactly alike, one of them is not thinking!" -Walter Martin, Christian Apologist. I appreciate your encouragement.
Or Republican/Democratic rooms are where people go when they can't think for themselves and need a nice socially constructed label to validate themselves. Essentially both sides sound like tow 10 year olds arguing over "my dad can beat your dad." Both parties talk a good game and don't deliver. The only difference is you prefer the b.s. spewed by the Republican party over the b.s. spewed by Democrats.
Black Americans love to embrace everything that was meant to oppress them including your precious Christianity. You do realize slaves had their native religions stripped and destroyed (I bet you couldn't name a single West African religion without googling) by Christian owners who use the Bible to justify enslaving them. Blacks were forced to adopt the religion and then continued out of habit. In my opinion, black Christians are still stuck in a slave mentality. Talk about honey laced with poison.
GetReal, thanks for your opinion but just because I don't make the same choice you make does mean I'm in a slave mentality. We can call names all we want but that doesn't prove a thing. In America there are two viable parties you either choose to change one or the other. I have made the choice to work with the one that is closest to what I believe and I am proudly Christian. Neither party is Christian but I think the party that values human life is a good start and I will work to make other changes I see as morally correct.
You are right I can't name any West African religions and I won't google them because they are not true and therefore won't get my time. I believe things that correspond to reality and that is one of the reasons I embrace Christianity. As soon as someone can prove that the claims of the Bible are not true then I will stop believing. You see, Jesus did raise from the dead, not even those who killed him denied it.
"You are right I can't name any West African religions and I won't google them because they are not true and therefore won't get my time. I believe things that correspond to reality and that is one of the reasons I embrace Christianity. As soon as someone can prove that the claims of the Bible are not true then I will stop believing. You see, Jesus did raise from the dead, not even those who killed him denied it."
Translation: I won't bother to think for myself and won't risk challenging my world view. Someone already decided for me what is truth so there's really no need for me to found out for myself.
I already posted examples of things that were completely erroneous on part of The Bible and obviously you just decided to ignore them. Thanks for proving my point. You're trapped in slave mentality and don't even realize it.
And unless you were there to see Jesus raise from the dead then your point is mute. They also said the world was flat back then, so not the most reliable people.
But lets use some logic for the resurrection claim. The 11 disciples to walk from Jerusalem to Galilee – some 60-70 miles north
- Matt 28:16-20
That's more than eight days (this does not include events described in the more recent addition of John’s chapter 21)
- John 20:26
But with the John 21 appendix, this means it was even longer as it also features a Galilean appearance. One must add to the tale at least the time it would have taken the disciples to walk there so 40 days.
However, it is made very clear that jesus rose, made all his appearances, and ascended into heaven all on the same day!
- Luke 24:13, 33, 36, 50
Because it says the post crucifixion events happen on the same day, Luke makes an appearance at, or journey to Galilee impossible because everything reportedly happens in the area of Jerusalem.
Remember, the disciples are told to stay there until Pentecost ( Luke 24:49 ) and at the conclusion, Jesus ascends to heaven from Bethany -just outside Jerusalem- that day.
Luke has jesus appearing to "the eleven" on the same day as the resurrection
- Luke 24:33-36
Yet, Thomas was missing on this appearance and it was over a week later that jesus actually appeared to all eleven – that is, with Thomas present
- John 20:24, 26
Jesus commands the apostles to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost
- Luke 24:49
Jesus tells the women to instruct the disciples to go immediately up to Galilee
- Matt 28:10
This is odd, since he was apparently going to see them himself later that day in Jerusalem, if you believe Luke and John.
Remember, though, that the women ‘said nothing to anyone’
- Mark 16:7
You know the two traveling to Emmaus in the reference above?
Well, Emmaus is about 10 miles west of Jerusalem, and Luke 24:13-33 has the two being visited by jesus, and the two then go that same hour to the eleven in Jerusalem.
This means these guys ran 10 consecutive miles averaging less than six minutes per mile without stopping for water or breath…in sandals.
Truly a miracle.
There are certainly more fantastic stories found in the bible, yet this one is not portrayed as a miracle. It is more likely an error due to the author’s ignorance of Judean geography and/or careless editing.
Jesus foretold he would be buried in the heart of the earth for three days and nights, as jonah was in the fish
- Matt 12:40
According to all four gospels, he was buried for just one day and two nights
- Mark 15:42, 16:1-3, Luke 23:54, 24:1,
John 20:1, Matt 27:62, 28:1
And what's the biggest contradiction in the Bible?
The law/commandments are to remain forever
- Matt 5:17-19, Luke 16:17
The law has ended
- Romans 7:4, Eph 2:15, Col 2:14
So if we say that Matt and Luke are true, then all that Old Testament stands, but if the old testament views are no longer valid, the very prophecies that Christians claim validate the messiah risk being thrown out with the bathwater. Paradoxical, isn't it?
GetReal, I guess because you say I am "trapped in slave mentality and don't even realize it," that makes it true. Don't worry about me being in a "slave mentality," I'm certainly not. I have made a calculated decision, not just a leap of faith.
Let me answer a few of your objections, unless you were there to see MLK assassinated then we must believe he is still alive and all the photos were just set ups. Please give me chapter and verse that says the world is flat. I don't see anywhere that the 11 disciples walked to Galilee only that the went or proceeded to Galilee how they got there is omitted. No serious theologian would say that the John who wrote the gospel was the same person who wrote the appendix and it is not considered canonical. All of these alleged problems are easily answered but I'm sure you are not really looking for answers, such as Emmaus. The Bible clearly states that they were going there not that they were there. Of course, after seeing Jesus they could not turn around and head back from whence they came or could they? Again these are easily answered if you really are looking but I don't think you are. Are you?
"Let me answer a few of your objections, unless you were there to see MLK assassinated then we must believe he is still alive and all the photos were just set ups"
LOL, you're kidding me? MLK was assasinated 43 years ago that's not remotely comparable to something that was written in a book thousands of years ago. The fact that there are people ALIVE THEN AND ARE ALIVE TODAY and photos of assassination makes it completely different situation. You're trying to make a false equivalence and are failing miserably.
And I never said the bible claimed the Earth was flat. I said the people of that time thought the Earth was flat. Although there are passages like Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19 , Daniel 4:11, Matthew 4:8, NIV Bible: Psalm 104:5, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Ecclesiastes 1:5 seem to suggest that the Earth is flat and never moves.
Yeah these alleged problems are easily answered when you use convenient answers that need much thought like the one you just provided. The is you're blatantly ignoring how it completely contradicts itself. I didn't make up anything it's right there for all to see but yet some people like you choose to keep the blind folds on.
GetReal, you are correct that my example is absurd, that's the point. If we are to claim that my MLK example is absurd then we must say that the eyewitnesses in Jesus' day were absurd. Clearly the authors of the NT believed the truth of the resurrection and were there to witness it. Surely the Roman Historian Josephus knew of the resurrection claims because he wrote of them and also the Jewish leaders knew of the claims and are silent on the issue even though we know that they could have answered the claim immediately after the resurrection and those claims would have reverberated throughout history. Finally, if anyone ever wanted to disprove the truthfulness of Christianity all they would have to do is find any evidence of Jesus' remains. The people of his day couldn't do it and no archeologist has yet to do it. Now let me ask you sincerely, who has on blinders?
Good grief, if you honestly don't see the fallacy in comparing a book that was written thousands ago and translated numerous, numerous times throughout that period with a widely publicized event that happened less than a half-century ago then you're a lost cause.
And as I said earlier the story of Jesus' resurrection is just a co-opt of a tale that was told hundreds of years of years before your great Jesus was even a thought. Essentially Christians just stole a story and swapped out the lead character with their Christian figure. You would know that if you actually studied human history and not just The Bible.
And I don't doubt that a historical figure named Jesus existed. Much like Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn, or Cleopatra. What I don't believe is that he was mystical child of a giant sky wizard.
"Finally, if anyone ever wanted to disprove the truthfulness of Christianity all they would have to do is find any evidence of Jesus' remains. The people of his day couldn't do it and no archeologist has yet to do it."
I'm sorry but I find you intellectually deficient. That is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If you don't find the remains of a modern day murder victim does that mean the murder victim wasn't murdered or didn't even exist? And how would you know that Jesus is Jesus? What would be a clue? Lol, would his DNA consist of glitter and unicorns? You slay me.
Right Black
Do you want to help me with a project? I'm gonna inform the family members of murder victims who remains haven't been found that the reason the remains have not been found is because their loved one has been resurrected.
GetReal, I commend you on your intelligence. The point I'm making is, if the evidence we have of MLK's death is credible to those who live 50 years after his death then why aren't the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection not credible? If the resurrection was false don't you think the Jewish leaders of this 50 year period would have written many times that it was false? In fact, these Jewish leaders along with the Roman Government knew exactly where the body was laid, the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, no DNA evidence would have been needed. Yes, the missing body is important, especially when everyone knew where it was and guards were set up to make sure it didn't disappear. Again, if these things were not true where are the denials of them from either the Jewish leaders or Rome. The only writings we have outside of the Biblical text actually confirm the reports. You may think this is funny but I pray you will come to know for yourself that these things indeed are true and could benefit you.
Furthermore, check the tales of these other so-called resurrections and you will find that they differ in many ways. First, all of them have been proven to be non-historical where Jesus's death, burial and resurrection has been confirmed as historical. We do not change all of the dating of western history over a fictional character or event, do we?
"I commend you on your intelligence. The point I'm making is, if the evidence we have of MLK's death is credible to those who live 50 years after his death then why aren't the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection not credible?"
Do you not hear yourself? Eyewitness accounts from thousands of years ago. Like I said the story of Jesus' resurrection is a story Christians stole from much older religious fables but for argument's sake just look at this very common phenomena: Person A tells Person B "situation xyz" Person B tells Person C but got some details wrong, Person C tells Person D the now incorrect info and even adds onto "situation xyz," now Person D tells Person E and so on and so forth. By the time Person Z hears "situation xyz" it resembles nothing told by Person A. Now multiply that example by thousands of years of translations and different interpretations and human agenda.
"If the resurrection was false don't you think the Jewish leaders of this 50 year period would have written many times that it was false?"
You do realize Jews reject the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. In fact some Jews don't believe he ever existed. And please do better than the appeal to authority fallacy.
" Furthermore, check the tales of these other so-called resurrections and you will find that they differ in many ways. First, all of them have been proven to be non-historical where Jesus's death, burial and resurrection has been confirmed as historical."
Blatant lies. First off none of those tales have been proven to be non-historical, you just made that up. Like your Jesus resurrection they exist in historical context of their holy books. The Bible is the only textual-direct reference to the existence of Jesus. Any outside documents that reference Jesus were only made after Christianity became a major cult movement thus inferring that the references of Jesus in the Roman texts are not independent sources but from Christianity itself. Regardless of current writings-the Bible was still written many years after the death of Jesus and his Disciples, which one must conclude there may be some exaggerations.
Regardless of other documents that mention Christ-One must keep in mind the impact Christianity was having on the world even around 105 AD and that there was not a direct source of the knowledge of Christ; yet, a past down story. So consequentially, the Bible is the only direct source at the time of Christ to prove existence.
"I pray you will come to know for yourself that these things indeed are true and could benefit you."
Keep your prayers for yourself. I firmly believe a pair of working hands is better than a million clasped ones. You don't know me or my life so don't make assumptions on what can benefit me. The nerve of you.
If the same technology that existed in 1968 existed back then to verify then you'd have a point. There's a reason why our judicial system doesn't rely solely on someone's eyewitness account because eyewitness accounts have been proven to be highly flawed. You're living lala land if you think people don't misunderstand, embellish if not outright lie about the things they "witnessed."
The fact is primarily all the substantial evidence for Jesus comes from Christian sources i.e. The Gospels. During his life he was virtually unknown as a traveling teacher who enjoyed limited popularity within a small community in a remote province of the vast Roman empire. If you're sold on "eyewitness accounts" then why are there no documents written during his lifetime that mention him? There's not a single document mentioning him from the period 7 BCE to 33 CE, an interval that covers the probable years that Jesus is believed to have lived. Might suspicious to have a man raising the dead, or healing people of leprosy, blindness, hemorrhaging, indwelling demonic spirits, turning water to wine, etc. and no documentation during the period he supposedly did all that. Could it be that stories of miracles that never happened but were added to bolster the importance of Jesus?
The Gospel writers tell us about Jesus because they think he is worth telling about, and they want others to follow him as well. Virgin birth, zombie rising aside it's not out of the realm of possibility that Jesus never really existed historically (I think he did just as Napoleon, Cleopatra, etc) but was someone man completely fabricated or at least seriously embellished versions of his life.
GetReal, thanks again for your comments. Why do you have problems with eyewitness accounts from thousands of years ago and you have no problem with Napoleon or Cleopatra's historicity? Unfortunately, your example of the narrative of Jesus' existence is nothing like the way it was really passed down. Many scholars will attest to the fact that these accounts were written by those who knew him or interview those who did. Also, some were written within 10 yrs. of the resurrection. (Check "Eyewitness to Jesus" by Carston Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona) The Jews of his day did not reject his existence and again Josephus, a Jewish Roman historian wrote of him. This is not a myth but an account of history. Josephus wrote way before Christianity was having a major impact on the Roman Empire.
Sure, people lie about and embellish facts but they are usually found out. Something as important as the world's largest religion would definitely be found out by now, would you agree? Where are the documents from that era that say Jesus isn't who I claim he is? For someone who really doesn't believe you seem very invested in the subject, why?
"Why do you have problems with eyewitness accounts from thousands of years ago and you have no problem with Napoleon or Cleopatra's historicity?"
I have problems with eyewitness accounts from any era including modern because they have been solidly proven to flawed. And that has nothing to do with the fact you can't compare Napoleon/Cleopatra to Jesus. During their lives and height of their power they were widely/internationally known the same can't be said for Jesus. You're comparing two unrelated tangents. I simply stated I think Jesus existed historically in the same way Napoleon/Cleopatra. I just don't believe he was just an ordinary man not the mystical son of God. There are stories and myths about Napoleon and Cleopatra as well that I don't believe in. So whatever you were trying to get at is irrelevant.
"Unfortunately, your example of the narrative of Jesus' existence is nothing like the way it was really passed down. Many scholars will attest to the fact that these accounts were written by those who knew him or interview those who did"
According to you? You are blatantly lying and this is not the first time you have done so. You have no credibility. No LEGITIMATE scholar will attest to something that is not true.
"Something as important as the world's largest religion would definitely be found out by now, would you agree? Where are the documents from that era that say Jesus isn't who I claim he is? For someone who really doesn't believe you seem very invested in the subject, why?"
No I don't agree and you're using an ad populum fallacy. The popularity of something doesn't validate the truthfulness of it. And as I stated and provided examples in previous posts The Bible has many erroneous and wrong passages about history and yet people still believe it is infallible. It's called denial and it's happening on a massive, global scale. There's a lot of money to be made by controlling people through religion and the powers that be aren't going to let facts get their way.
Also I'm invested in numerous subjects, not just Christianity, because I like to learn, study, and challenge myself on various subject matters. Regardless of how I feel and what I think of Christianity it doesn't negate the influences (good and bad) it has on society.
I was born in the Bible Belt to a heavily Evangelical family in an incredibly Christian community. I've been immersed in Christian culture since birth so of course it has a major impact on my life. But even as a child I knew just because people say it's true that I have to find out for myself. Religion is opiate for the masses and Yahweh or any God really is Santa Claus for big people.
GetReal, just because eyewitness accounts are flawed doesn't mean an event didn't happen. Again, if this event didn't happen the silence of the Jewish leaders is actually so loud it is deafening. For them to be falsely accused of arresting the Messiah and handing him over for crucifixion would be appalling and they would have answered these accusation. You say, "No LEGITIMATE scholar will attest to something that is not true." Whose test do we use for legitimacy? Yours? As far as the Bible's historical accuracy is concerned I would hope (as someone who likes to learn) you would do you homework. Just because an atheist or anti-Christian apologist claims something doesn't make it true. Furthermore, you can add a latin term or logical fallacy term to anything you wish to deny but that doesn't make it true either. I am glad that you are invested in learning and studying because when I was younger I had many question too but through God's grace he gave me the answers I needed. I am sure yours will come. Sorry, but I am praying for you.
I have read this entire hub with great interest. Now it is my turn.
Some time back there was a discussion regarding Great Black activists in American History. Douglas and King fought for Human Rights and Civil Rights. These rights are what are considered God given rights that all men are entitled to.
Jessie Jackson rode MLK’s coattails to get where he is. And JJ is not in my eyes a great man. He fights to get more free programs for poor people (mainly Blacks). These are not what I consider God given rights but sucking the Government teat. At some point the breastfeeding has to stop and people have to fend for themselves.
My next comments relate to Religion. These Bible stories have been retold and rewritten over 2000 plus years. Each time a little different depending on whom told or wrote it. One reason there are so many denominations and Religions. Religion has been used over the Centuries to control people. Human have always been superstitious, and scared of the unknown. One way to keep people in line was to tell them that after they die they will spend eternity in Hell if they are bad. Instant people control.
I am not making a stand on whether there is or is not a God or Heaven or anything related to religion. My point is that whatever its beginnings, Men have made it into what “They” want it to be for their reasons. Take people such as Jim Jones who could get people to drink poison, yes some were forced to drink, but by followers of Jim Jones. Then there are the people who followed James Baker and PTL and sent in Millions of dollars that the Bakers used to live high on the hog. Then there is Jesse Jackson, he has the poor, mostly Black people follow him. He uses religion to further his causes, claiming to be a man of God. Now there is even a preacher in Michigan, Rob Bell, who has a congregation of 10000 people who donate over 2 million dollars a year to “his” church. Most of his followers are young people. According to the man there is no Hell, everyone goes to Heaven, you can also drink and do drugs and listen to anti Christian music and on and on. He claims that standard religion is all wrong and guess what? Young people are swarming to this man because he doesn’t have “rules”. Just a go do “whatever” And don’t worry, you won’t be punished by God.
Tell people they can do whatever they want and they will go to Heaven is like saying vote for our candidate and we will see that you don’t have to work or face your responsibilities. We will give you what you need.
It is all about control.
sowhataboutbob, thanks for your comment. I found several of your points agreeable and others not so much. I think it is all about freedom and people choose to let others control them. We give politicians, preachers, and yes, civil rights activists permission to control us. This is what I think has happened in the black community. I have been accused by some as having a slave mentality. This is usually by those who want the paternalistic government handouts. I agree that we should fend for ourselves and fight for our own prosperity. I work hard and will continue to work hard until I can get enough money saved and invest so that it can work hard for me. I don't want either party to ever think that they automatically have my vote but over 90% of blacks give the Democratic Party their votes no matter what. They "GIVE" them their votes of their own free will and therefore are controlled by choice.
What silent Jewish leaders are you talking about? Did you miss the part in Jewish faith that doesn't believe in a Jesus Christ. And apparently because something is in a book you happen to like that means what it says is true. Like I said you full of logical fallacies and weak arguments. You avoid valid points and basically just resort to "la la la I can't hear my zombie god says it's true." Pathetic.
And I have done my homework which is why I'm not stuck in a slave mentality like yourself. It's you that have displayed a severe lack in knowledge and in some parts outright lies.
GetReal, just because someone doesn't believe "in" Jesus Christ doesn't mean that they don't believe he was a part of first century history. Josephus made clear reference to Jesus in his writings. Josephus was a Roman Historian of the first century who happened to be Jewish. The silent Jewish leaders were the ones who were around when the books of the New Testament were written. They could have easily pointed out any lies and been sure that Christianity would have been seen as a small sect of frauds. Again, just because you say I'm full of logical fallacies doesn't make it so, you need to point out my logical inconsistencies. Saying that I have a slave mentality is just an ad hominem attack, hope it makes you feel good but you have proven nothing.
The fact that I don't answer every apparent objection you bring up just proves that I think for myself and am not a slave to anyone who demands an answer to every trifling question. Thanks for coming back, I'm praying for you!
Hi RB, I am new to HubPages...somehow stumbled upon your hub through some random google search. Love the topics you discuss and the manner in which you present yourself. And I commend you in your ability to foster an environment which can debate such divisive issues without resorting to the personal attacks so commonly found these days with these "discussions". So, for that, I thank you. As well as SOFB. I can credit the two of you with my membership to this site, and I look forward to "following" the different perspectives both of you represent in an intelligent and mature way. It's refreshing.
That said, let's get at it. :)
I don't believe the divide is as much between Dems vs. the GOP as it is between a major subsection of the south (ie, previous White Southern Racist Democrats, now sitting firmly in the Republican camp) and the political party that caters to them vs. the rest of the country. Allow me to explain:
From the Civil War, up until the 60s, Democrats catered to white southerners -- who were initially almost uniformly pro-slavery, and when they lost THAT battle, moved to a segregationist position and the enactment of Jim Crow Laws, establishment of the KKK, etc. This lasted for a century, during which time Republicans consistently fought (and voted) against the discrimination. Good. And during this time period, the black community voted mostly for the party representing their best interest -- the Republicans. The exception being the FDR era where everyone was looking for "relief", regardless of their racial prejudices. Interesting how the country can come together only during dire economic circumstances. But this era is a whole other discussion that I will "table" for now.
During the 60s, things changed. LBJ enacted major civil rights legislation. In my opinion, this is the turning point. You frequently point to the fact Republicans (during this period) voted in favor of civil rights acts. This is true. But let's eliminate Dem vs Rep votes and focus on regional votes, North vs South :
Voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act by Region, North vs. South (South being defined as the 11 states that made up the Confederate States):
House Votes (For-Against):
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
Senate Vote (For-Against):
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
Again, to me, it's not a Dem-vs-Rep issue as much as it is a North-vs-South (those in the south who lost the Civil War and at the time, promoted pro-segregationists) issue.
You deny the existence of a "Southern Strategy" initiated by Republicans during the 60s. But it existed. The Republicans, tired of losing elections, and seeing a disenfranchised Southern Democratic stronghold, now without a party to cater to their racist attitudes...more than capitalized on that opportunity. LBJ, upon enacting the 1964 Civil Rights Act, remarked "We have lost the South for a generation." He had *no* idea how profound and insightful that comment would end up to be. But it just wasn't for a generation, it overwhelmingly categorizes our political environment today.
The Southern Strategy was employed by Republicans during the 60s when they identified (and tired of losing of elections) the opportunity to capture the white southern racist electorate. And they used it to their advantage. I firmly don't believe either party is inherently racist as opposed to having to pander to this influential racist vote in the south (when it's convenient). To deny the reality of the this southern prejudice and how it has shaped political parties...is, quite frankly, naive.
A main theme of Nixon's 1968 campaign was in opposition to school desegregation of schools. That is fact. And this more than appealed to the White Southern Racist coalition opposed to civil rights. Nixon knew it. And not that I think he was racist, I simply think he saw the "opportunity" at hand. The same opportunity Dems saw throughout the 100 years prior to dropping the Civil Rights Act "bomb".
When the solidly Democratic South coincidentally started turning to the Republican party in the late 60s, you say "Nixon's southern strategy was successful because he wanted fair minded non-racists southerners to stop voting for Democrats". Do you really believe this 100+ year history of racism stemming solely from the south, suddenly turned non-racist? Overnight? No really, seriously?
But don't take my word for it. Read an article of one of Nixon's main Campaign Strategists. It's interesting, whether you agree with it or not, solely because it was written during the late 60s, as all this was taking place:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillip
Conclusion: I am liberal, and I don't deny it. But you and I are not all that different. Neither are the political parties. IF the black community were to actually move to the Republican party (as you suggest they should), I can almost guarantee you, the now Southern Republican stronghold (previously the Dem stronghold)would shift to the Democratic party. And THAT is what needs to stop, and the pandering therein.
Right Black-thank you for posting the truth behind what motivates people to vote Democrat...race has no boundaries though because they got all sorts of types and colors voting for them so they can stay enslaved to the gov't handout gravy train!
Creatrix- thanks for the comments. I saw your rebuttal a few weeks ago but just didn't have the time to answer due to the fact that I was studying for two very important tests in my business pursuits. Most of what you argue I have answered elsewhere and I would refer you to those answers. I will only deal with the new issues you raise. I agree that racism knows no party but I find that historically that most racists camp out in the Democratic Party. Here's what they do, they segregate from each other but they come together as a voting block in order to voluntarily vote in politicians who will continue there specific hand out and implement policies that segregate the rest of us.
You wrongly assume that Republicans would not have won an election. Have you forgotten Ike? Did you forget that Nixon won the popular vote in 1960 but not the electorial vote? Of course, the Democrats lost the south for a generation but it was because now with race out of the way politically, people were more free to vote different issues, such as personal responsibility, free enterprise and lower taxes to name a few? Contrary to popular belief in the black community everything does not revolve around race. Get over it already. You must understand that the underground railroad had southern participants who were white. Were there non-racist whites living in the south, you bet! My great grandfather happened to be one of them but was not allowed by law to marry my great grandmother but they had kids and set up two households just the same. They did this out of love.
If blacks moved to the right I guarantee that the Republican Party would welcome them home with open arms and the Democrats would surely not win another Presidential Election for a century. Of course, in order for the black community to be welcomed home we would have to return to a majority of us believing in the American Dream including the principles of an honest living without working the social system to milk it for all its worth. I know more whites are on welfare than blacks but I would like to see the percentage of blacks on welfare the lowest of all ethnic groups in America, wouldn't that be nice?
In africa millons have be killed because there are 13 diff shads of black. Most whites. Don't know how rasist blacks are. Whites are the only race that has killed brothers sisters moms and dads to give freedom to a race that looks nothing like them.
People of all colors first came to this country and left behind schools doctors food stores housing clean water and everything else. These first americans didn't want anything from no one. Thay wanted to make it all on there own. The problem is most people now aren't like that. Thay won't leave this country and move to a undevolped place and work hard and make it on there own. We are a country full of people who want hand outs. After all if you can walk into this country without anything and can't even speak english and have a job that week. It shows me how lazy and week americans are now. The first americans would be so disapointed in us.
Interestsing take Levi, I don't fully agree. I think there are still plenty of Americans who have the desire and the drive to build something out of nothing. Just because there are people south of the border or from other countries who have the same drive doesn't mean it doesn't exist here. Yes, many Americans are lazy but so are many, Mexicans, Australians and Russians. Lazy people exist everywhere, we should just more ashamed of the laziness due to the opportunity.
This was very interesting indeed. I don't agree with alot was said in this piece and I don't claim an organized gang(Republican or Democrat) but I do believe that AAs vote Democrat because they have been taught to; They vote Democrat because they believe Republicans don't care about the middle and lower class Americans( Which reality is neither party does), and AAs vote Democrat because the party has developed social programs that helps those who NEED IT. Now, with that being said, you have ALL KINDS OF AMERCIANS abusing those programs, living off of them and not using them a temporary assistance. This is sad and this is what gets the AA community a bad rap. I believe somewhere after AAs were freed and today the group has been lost, trying to figure out how to make it on their own and at the same time, get was is owed to them. And that confusing has been passed down from generation to generation. Now you have AAs that expect something--some type of assistance without the cost of hard work. That is the problem with always voting Democrat--it's like you are depending on Bid Daddy to save the day for you, but Big Daddy has another agenda to fulfill. But then you have Republicans who say "Get yourself together! I did, so should you!", but what the GOP doesn't understand that the group of confused AAs don't know how, and if you don't guide them, they will go back to the Democrats b/c they know they will recieve the assistance they desire. All in all, none of us are free, none of us is equal, and we will never be. As long as racism, social class divisions exist, as long we have to fill out our race and nationality on state and government documents, none of us will ever be free.
Right Black: Keep on talking the truth. Obviously there are too many people who were raised in ignorance and have been unable to move beyond it even after reaching adulthood. The truth has been - and even considering your efforts as well as others like you - continues to be grossly underrepresented in the mainstream dialogue. Stay the course and I commend you and your convictions to educate and enlighten the wayward many.
Ahumanbeing, you sound like you are a true conservative whether you have a party or not. There are some things which I hope you understand about those who say, "Get it together." We believe that in the information age every American has access to the information needed to make a change. The problem is a person must have a true desire along with the discipline to do it. I am in the process myself of changing careers. It is difficult to make this change but it is important that a person directs the change rather than simply go through the change. This is only done by being disciplined enough and patient enough to see the change occur. Many quit just before they are going to win. Our motto should be, "Never, never give up," as Winston Churchill once said. As far as freedom is concerned, if you look for it outside of yourself you will never find it.
PayItForward, your name says it all. If I have said anything correct all I'm doing is paying it forward. Thanks for reading.
I have wondered on this many times myself. I see it has the republican party has always been the one fighting for African Americans. If not for Lincoln who knows where we would be. Frederick Douglas was a republican, Martin Luther King was a republican and Rosa Parks was as well. Then they started the whole giving hands outs instead of giving folks a hands up to be more and things changed. I personaly would never side with a party that faught to keep me down and in the shadows and just give me a check to stay in the shadows and be quiet. Democrats today stand for big Govt involvement and govt handouts, while the Repubs stand for giving people the ability to pull themselves up and make something of their lives without the govt telling them how to do it. I just dont really understand. My cousins are black and their whole family is republicans. They are so because they are christians and vote on morals.
I have another question. How could anybody support a person like oboma when he justice dept said that without party affiliation African Americans wouldnt know how to vote? He is calling his own people too stupid to vote based on a mans action and whats in his heart. That all came about when North carolina voted to do away with partisan elections and party tags. Im just trying to understand how African Americans view that?
Matt, thanks for your comments. I understand that many of the Civil Rights activists historically were Republicans. I understand that most of the Civil Rights Laws were introduced and passed by Republicans. Why do blacks vote Democrat? Historically blacks were uneducated and needed someone to help them make decisions on voting choices, hence the Black Leader. After, MLK, Jesse Jackson hired a PR guy to help him assume the mantle, the Democrats bought him and he advised blacks to vote Democrat to pay his debt. This has been passed down as a legacy from that generation forward. Hopefully this answers both of your questions. If not, I'm sure I'll be elaborating in upcoming hubs.
Please think about this. When someone gives you unlimited free food, health-care, housing so called empathy and great promises to raise you up from your poverty they do nothing to help you have hopes and dreams for a better life or the desire to change your life. They enslave you they make you dependent on them for your entire life. The south did it over a hundred years ago and now it is the liberals neither were or are good, right or in the best interest of human beings. THEY ARE NOT your friend, but your master. To give you unlimited welfare, housing, food stamps, health-care and so on crushes your innate desire to hope, to dream for better thinks, to work, to be responsible when it comes to having children (that's just more money in your pocket and it is not fair to you or the children) being their to take care of those kids.. why worry about getting a job.. Uncle Sam takes care of it all. You lose the desire to be all you can be, to have dreams and work to see those dreams come true, to better yourself and your family, to see the fruits of your labor and be proud of what you accomplished. If you dream, work hard and use you brain you can become that 1%. Look at the black congressmen and women, the owner of the Black TV Network,Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and many more who started out with nothing and made it to the top. Stop letting the Democrat party or anyone else make you their slave, dependent on them to GIVE you the money to keep a roof over your head, put food in the mouth or your kids, pay your medical bills and push the idea that abortion is good for you. Become the dreamer that works hard to be what you want to be and become it, insist your kids get an education and don't put up with their garbage (foster those dreams to be better than the last generation) - get the government out of how you raise your kids, No more punk mouths, disobeying you about what they can do or not do, wearing their pant to the knees, showing disrespect to you and everyone else - who's paying the bills, demand that respect, but earn it first. We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that means by frighting for freedom and working hard to have your dreams fulfilled, not by demanding that others die for your freedom or by other paying your bills and putting up with your lack of gratitude. Get up, get that job no matter how small it may be and work towards fulfilling those hopes and dreams small step by step. Don't be part of a party that wants to keep you under their thumb by keeping you on the money line and crushing your desire to hopes and dreams for your life of others to be better. I don't care if you're white, black, Asian, Mexican, purple or green. Fight for what is right, not for a handout based on the hard work of those with a dream and working for it. Become dreamers again with hope and the willingness to work for what your dream is. We will not all become millionaires, but we can all work towards that, give our kids a chance to do it and make this county what it used to be. A place where freedom mattered, your right to your religion and to express it, to be able to say a pray at school, to be treated as a human being with equal rights give us by God and to be respected. We should not tolerated the 1% who are stopping us from praying in public, raising our kids like mom and dad did, being treated with respect, suing someone because they were stupid enough to spill hot coffee on themselves, having kids show respect to adults especially in school and on and on instead of the false promises of politician who steal your dreams and hope and actually oppress you. Abe Lincoln fought to give all men and women the chance to have their dreams and work for them... not give anyone a free handout without limits (he educated himself and worked to hard to become what he did). I believe we need to help each other get a chance, but not to suck the system dry for the rest of anyone's life. Remember it is not all about you and that you should have everything you want now without working for it. Sometimes it takes time to get what you want, there are consequences to our actions.. if you don't want those consequence than don't do the action that bring problems like a baby you can't afford or want. Stop killing our future.
God bless you and this great country. Let's not destroy it or become so socialist that we end up like Greece, the UK or worse Russia.
SOUTH OF THE BORDER GIRL, you said it, girl.
You are entirely correct about the democratic party being the original oppressor of blacks the southern crackers were the greedy ones who equated slavery with personal wealth. Any "civil rights" actions that any democrat voluntarily approved (except for possiblty Jimmy Carter and a few true Christian democrats)were done only when their hand was forced. Keep up the good work of getting the truth out to the ignorant masses!
wiseman, thanks for your comment. It's been difficult to get my point-of-view across to the "ignorant masses" in person but I think hubpages has given me a nice vehicle to begin via the web. Hope you come back.
This is absurd. You think that most black people are stupid and misinformed? No, they vote their interest. They voted GOP when the GOP best served their interests and vote DEM now because they better serve their interests. The veiled racism on this page is disgusting, and the rvievisionist history appauling. Creativix left a great comment that of course no one tended to. This is the problem with conservatives; they only see black and white (no pun intended). GOP... good, Dem... bad... always and forever. This is an idiotic and nonsensical way of seeing things. If you examine history you will see that it has always been the south that is racist and has always been conservatives. Lincoln was much more liberal than Bull Conner or George Wallace; you have to look at where the parties stood and who their constituency was. The south went from blue to red over the issue of civil rights. The GOP ran on State's Rights; both Reagan and Nixon. This is why the modern GOP is home to nearly all racists, especially those who dislike blacks. Please stop trying to misnform your audience and please use nuance and history when assesing reality, not just cramming things into your ideology.
Daswann, I appreciate your point of view. I agree that blacks voted for the GOP when our best interest was an interest of equal rights, not preferential rights. Again, the GOP gives a hand up while the DEM's give a hand out which most blacks believe is in their best interest. That's where the deception is. Hand outs enslave where as a hand up empowers.
Let's look at your terms, conservative and liberal. Words have stipulated meaning, that is that there definition is what meaning is poured into the word. Example: "dope" means good in today's slang vernacular. Liberal originally meant those who were for peoples right to have liberty. Today it means the right to do anything you want to do or lawlessness. Conservative once meant to keep the laws and society the same. Today it means smaller government and more liberty for all. The words may be the same but the meaning has changed. I understand that you may think that I believe blacks are stupid but I don't. If I thought we were stupid I wouldn't write. It is because I believe that my black audience understands, this is the very reason I write. I write to enlighten and persuade not to cram anything into an ideology. I speak the truth even when I don't like it. If you think I like saying these things you're wrong but they need to be said. Thanks for reading.
Ralph Deeds, You are the type of white I consider dangerous. In that racism still exist in America, your the type A example of today's "White Racism". Your condescending attitude is what has done damage to the black family and experience in America. You hide behind your, so called, black friends to lash out at other blacks you find offensive to your elitist views.
Plus you aren't to free with the truth. LBJ wanted the Civil Rights Bill; but it was Republicans that he needed to get the Bill passed because the Dems wouldn't do it. They threatened to leave the Dem Party if Johnson signed the Bill. Reagan's conservatism won the, so called, Reagan Dems. And they didn't come to the Rep Party as racist, they left the Dem Party's racism. I'm not sure enough right now to refute some of your other claims; but seeing that you are a Dem Apologist prone to lies, I will go ahead and assume that you're, at least, not being completely truthful about those claims too. To call the author of this article an "Uncle Tom" is to show all the world you are indeed a bigot. You're for the black man, as long as he stays in his place. Once he thinks for himself he becomes too "uppity" and you show your real contempt for a free thinking negro.......Massa Deeds....You Creep.
Ray, thanks for the comment, not that I need any help with Ralph Deeds but I appreciate your comments.
Actually, Kennedy did not sign the 1957 bill in its form because he knew that it would split the Democratic party far too much to be effective. This allowed him to win votes to gain the presidency, where, with his brother as Attorney General, they could enforce existing laws. There were already integration laws in effect, Kennedy got them enforced, like the interstate bussing. The creation of the CEEO worked toward fairness in employment, federal jobs went to minorities, and those worthless Redskins had to sign black players, okay, I disagree with that one cause then they wouldn't have their rings. Kennedy started a culture change using existing laws, quite genius actually. Do you think had these changes not had taken place, the Civil Rights Act of 64 would've passed? Think on it...
It's easier to vote Democratic for blacks because you don't have to work hard or get some easy government job.
davinci38, thanks for the comment. I don't think it's that simple. I think there is a mind set that has been aggressively sold by the Democratic Party. It is this mindset that needs to be changed and the mindset presupposes that everything conservative is bad for or dangerous to blacks. Also, it supports a victim mentality along with a gangster lifestyle for black young men. There is a lot of work to be done in Black America.
@Right Black. I am glad I stumbled onto this page. You have mad some really compelling remarks. I am a black man as well, and I can't tell you how frustrating it is for me sometimes. I have been in the army for almost 22 years and find that when I go home and have converstions with old friends I am in the minority when it comes to politics.
Most of my friends from home actually get angry at me because I am not a fan of President Obama. Its like I do not have the right to disagree with the man. I condider myself a conservative. I get so tired of other black people questioning me about my heritage. I am a very proud black man. I know where I come from and where I want to go. I do not have to be a democrat to be a proud black man.
It is such a myth that republicans/conservatives only care about the rich. I for one, would have voted for Hermann Cain. Here is a man who made himself out of nothing, and built himself up to be one of the most succesful buissness men in the country. You would think that most black americans would gravitate to that. Instead, they call him an uncle tom. It frustrates me so much. Alot of the democrats that most black people vote for, are just as guilty of some of the things they accuse the republicans of. The real problem with politics, is that the far right and the far left cant agree on anything and we are all screwed. It is such a shame that in this country, if you are a republican you are far right, and that if you are a democrat you are far left. I feel that is not true at all. There are extremes on both sides. Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you for your take on things, and I am glad that I am not the only black conservative.
Richard, thanks for reading. There are 42 million blacks in America and most don't vote. It is estimated 16 million voted and 95% voted for Pres. Obama. This means that about 800,000 blacks vote conservative. This means that out of every 50 blacks you meet 1 is conservative. You must remember that liberal/progressives are very dogmatic about what they believe and will fight for their beliefs, so to be called a few names isn't really that bad. What we have to do is hold our ground and incrementally increase our numbers until Black America wakes up to the damage done by the Democrats to the black community.
I'm in So Cal ... LA area ... and in the past, I've worked with Af-Am ministers in neighborhood concerns. I always thought the values they espoused were conservative values and I'm a bit miffed with the Republican Party in LA not doing more ... or perhaps they have. I'm a dad to a multi-racial fam through adoption, btw.
I also remember being at a gathering in LA where Nate Holden was speaking or hosting. I think it was early 2001 and a black minister spoke up saying the group was alienating him because he voted for GW Bush.
This hub is grade A. It is scary that SOBF can legitimize a group such as BPP. My ultimate fear of the left leaning govt and its supporters is the use of force by the party, through the "worker" and other niche groups (BPP), to adversely control the population through a flow of media, social appeasement, and implied control. When Germany Italy had their political shifts in the 1920's and 1940's, the union thug played the role of street level enforcer. What better way than to focus in on heavily populated areas that have high dependency rates. Orwells Nightmare! Everyone who reads this Hub should be able to tell what side of history they want to be in on, the subservient & oppressive side, or the individual, freedom loving, self empowering, truth seeking side.
(Left - Collectivism, Consolidate the people, social engineer dependency, provide a rationed standard of life, disarm the people, provide the media, send the message & spread...take control away from the individual, who in all likelihood is the blind puppet that stands behind the belief of, "That's not me and my beliefs, it's just the group." At this point the people are lost.)
I'm so speechless! Man, man I will NOT vote for NO Democratic candidate. I was having a conservation with a friend about voting for the Democratic party this year and that I lost my faith in voting for the Republican party. She replied to me do your research and don't allow the media hype pick a party for you as a first-time voter. I can't believe how my American History teacher in HS just lied to me and almost gotten away with it. The reason why I have never participated in the elections because I felt both parties were based on GREED, it wasn't about the people, and most of all I wasn’t educated the way that I’m now. I know this year I have tooooo vote and its going to be for a REPUBLICAN candidate all the way. I always sided with the Republican party because as a single mother working full-time and attending college full-time it’s not my duty to take care someone who wants to be on the welfare system for years or even their entire life. There's nothing wrong with the government providing assistant to families in needs but there's something wrong with providing help to someone who do not want to help themselves. I have applied for government assistance before and never received full benefits. For example, I was approved for share cost Medicaid (I have to pay a certain percentage before Medicaid pays) for my child but was denied Food Stamps. But someone who’s staying home and having babies left and right from different men gets full benefits. If it wasn't for Rev. King and the Republican party I wouldn't have the PRICELESS equal opportunity that I have today!! Clearly, Obama does not know what his doing and CONGRESS knows what’s best for the citizens of America!!! I'm a proud BLACK Republican!! Right Black you ROCK and great HUB!!!
Don Simkovich, thanks for commenting. I have been alienated for multiple reasons but when I say "I vote Republican" that's the end of the conversation or it turns confrontational. I'm not overly successful yet but the fact that I choose to work hard and spend time in self development is criticized. I'd rather be criticized and be on track for success than sitting on the sidelines acting the part of the critic. No one ever respects the critic.
ZA, thanks for commenting, of course I agree with you. SOBF is an intelligent man, I believe he could be rethinking his views right now. If not, I still respect the fact that he will at least argue respectfully.
OMG2012, thanks for your hopeful and encouraging comments. There are several things that the left don't want Americans to know. What they don't want Black Americans to know is their own history and that it was indeed the Republican Party that was founded to end slavery They hide the fact that all the truly great Black Leaders were Republican. This includes Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. There are many others but you'll never hear this from the left as they rewrite history. What we have to do is push back this revisionist history and teach our children the truth.
Go, Right Black! racism has many faces, and unfortunatley we can't see the recsim when the faces LOOK pretty or sympathetic to us!
Hey royalblkrose, thanks for reading. It's sometimes difficult to see that wolf when he is in sheep's clothing.
This article is rather ridiculous. The reason Republicans lost the black vote was because of the southern strategy and there alignment with the Ku Klux Klan. The GOP today is essentially the dixiecrats of the late 1940's. Though some aspects of the welfare system do oppress the formation of the black family, such as the section 8 article, because inorder for a woman to use it her child father can't stay with her, the biggest oppression is the way education funds are allocated. Where a small town of rich people can have better buildings and books than a large city of poor people. Both parties are responsible for the welfare state in place because had the 10k+ slaves freed after the civil war recieved the reparations ordered to them, we wouldn't see this robin hood syndrome of the democratic party which only exist because neither party when it was feasible was willing to do the right thing, which kind of beckons for a third party to step up and do the right thing for all of us not just there base.
coldgame, thanks for reading and commenting. Check your history, almost all of the Dixiecrats went back to the Democratic party from which they came. The Republican party has always been the party for all Americans but was specifically started to free the slaves. Your reasoning for the welfare state is that the freedmen didn't get their just due. Well, again my friend, you can lay that one at the door of the Southern Democrats. Who proposed the reparations, Republicans. Who blocked them, Democrats. coldgame, if I were you I'd reconsider who I'm in bed with maybe they don't have your best interest in mind. Think about it, do the research you might come to a different conclusion and join the party of Lincoln, Douglass and King.
I am white. I am from the south. I have a southern accent. I want to state that I love African Americans as well as all people!!! :) I even love people that I disagree with because I understand that people believe the way they do for a reason, even if that reasoning is right or wrong. I have learned to separate that to seeing them as a person or individual instead of seeing them as a thought or reasoning. I want the best for African Americans as well as all. I believe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted everyone to see people as equal and not just have a law that says they are. Seeing people as equal will only come when you have a love for people. TOTAL RELIANCE (I did say "total") on government to take care of you is slavery. Its psychological slavery! Pumping people up to go back into the slavery their ancestors were freed from is shameful and total foolishness. However I still love and respect those that would disagree and those who think foolishly. I am an abolitionist and want to end this type of slavery. It's God who gives us our ability to produce wealth not a government. Deuteronomy 8:18
SH, Amen! Thanks for reading, love your comment.
The key is not to look into the past to define the Democratic party, but the present! These are just names. The reality is that both parties have changed views over the years. The party is the people not the name!
X-Factor, I agree the present is very important but the past helps us see why we have the present. Indeed the people are the party but the views of the party as stated in their platform is what the people think. The laws that they pass and the effect on those they say they are helping let's us know who they really are. I am certainly more interested in what a person does instead of what they say. Democratic policy has been harmful to the Black community and this is in the present.
RB, I'm grateful to have found this hub. spent the last hour tooling around and its encouraging to discover kindred spirits on the important issues of the day. I'm a black man born and raised in the West Indies and I becaame liberated from this mindset quiet a few years ago. I was informed by my experience and frankly when something doesn't sit right and all the evidence suggest otherwise, you would think folks would be compelled to act/reject a certain ideology. Alas it is not going to happen anytime soon. I have given up on family members and friends (this accounts for about 90%)and have a lot of hope for my two sons because I have taught them HOW to think not WHAT to think..the jury is still out of course...college is fast approaching for the older kid..
We live in troubling times and its remarkable to me how intelligent people continue to see these things and cannot ascertain the hypocrisy..
I'm actually looking forward to the upcoming vitriol directed at blacks who oppose gay marriage.. waiting to see that liberal "big tent" splinter. I imagine they will still vote for King Barack tho..
Interesting. The root of Democrats is in the term "majority rules". Give a democrat everything they want and you have 51% taking from the other 49% in various ways. Republicans are founded in "rule of law". Give a reupblican everything they want and they forever tweak a society to provide "best case" environment for all to be equally able to succeed or fail.
Democrats could be considered a voting lynch mob in the earliest days. The "majority" did not want free slaves. Lincoln was a brilliant man and a Republican who believed in making laws to improve an injustice: slavery.
The modern day black voting tradition is sadly rooted in the "take from the rich and give to the poor" socialist philosophy of the democrats. And everyone knows that the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money when you hit that 49%/51% split. The USA has hit that split now. There's no more to take. So if anyone (including blacks) want more, they have to make it rather than take it. And THAT, my friends, is where Republicans are born. :-)
One of the most famous right-wing Republicans is Rush Limbaugh. If you met him privately, you might be surprised to learn that he truly aspires for all people regardless of color be afforded the opportunity to succedd or fail. That's it. No tricks, no gimmicks, no deceptions. He will tell you that if you are lazy, you deserve to fail. He will tell you that the harder you work, the more you should enjoy what you've earned and that it's nobody's business to take what you earn. Now, who can argue with that?
I'm a conservative and I think the Republican Party is too diluted with liberal tendancies. Whenever I encounter someone wanting to complain rather than work, they are not worth my time. When I meet a capable person who refuses to work because they are "on disability" or "unemployment" I am disgusted. How can someone be on disability because they are too fat and therefore not required to get up, get dressed, and get to work and be productive so that they don't spend most of their time eating and watching TV?! And I understand a shift needs to occur over time. You can't yank welfare out from society all at once. But we need to ween off of welfare almost entirely. Someone in school today has choices to make: work hard or drop out. Those who choose the latter don't deserve my money. Blacks from the 1950's didn't have equal choices so I understand how welfare got started. But like a drug, some things are just hard to give up. Someone needs to make the case that it's time to go to welfare rehab -- as a nation.
I would LOVE to see blacks come over to the Republican Party and create a society of law that protects everyone equally and creates an environment where anyone can choose success or failure however motivated they are! And if/when you blacks come on over, please help us conservatives kick out some of the fake Republicans who are called RINOs -- republican in name only.
Right Black, you are an extremely intelligent man. I was wanting to point out to SOBF that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson. However, the bill was initiated by Dwight D. Eisenhower in the fifties. It was rejected continously by democrats. Republicans in Congress continued to push it until it was passed and LBJ was pressured to sign it. Of course, the democrats recieved all of the credit. The rest is history. I also liked how you mentioned the aborted babies. It is very sad, but everyone needs to realize that abortion was legalized for the purpose of eugenics. That goes back to the supposed hero Margaret Sanger. I am sure you know all about that. The democrats are not as caring as one would make you believe.
"there are none so blind as those who WON'T see" Keep at it, RB
I disagree , I believe it has a lot less to do with policy and a lot more to do with minority group-think and an Us-against the system way of thought. To stray from the group on political matters takes a great deal of independence and courage. And that goes for any minority group in a democracy , be they Hispanic , Black , etc. , The Democrats have done a good job exploiting this fact knowing the backlash against them by the mainstream group is not severe as the mainstream is homogenous and does not vote along the same lines.
Reverse slavery.
I believe that slavery on white or black is wrong, evil.
I say that to assert this, that whites are the majority of tax payers in this country, and rich white pay by far the greatest share of taxes. In so doing they are made by the leftist government, slaves. The poor or minority folks, who are on welfare, and food stamps, in effect are the masters.
I think this entitlement mentality is what keeps black folk voting Democrat. But they have been deceived, the standard or quality of life for the poor is pathetic at best, while their rich white donors are living a quality of life they will never know.
The black folk who have figured out self-dependence and freedom to pursue riches and happiness in the US are a far better opportunity for them to seek, in order to achieve the same quality of life, or better than their ancestors.
Education and business is open to all races, and only their imagination or erroneous thinking can hold them back!!!
Bacchanal, thanks for the comment and you should get ready for a change of thought in you immediate family when they go to college. My oldest just finished his first year at a "Christian" college and is struggling with some issues that I thought he had already thought through. Peer pressure is significant and it is not until a person figures out that the friendships are not worth giving up your integrity that we really see people who will think for themselves. I don't care if they don't agree all the time but I do care that the thought is clear, moral and logical. Thanks for reading.
eovery 2 years ago
You are a wiseman. You need to spread this around. Keep up the good work.
Keep on hubbing!