Volume I No. 45
 12-24-02
 Where's A Good Old-Boy Segregationist To Go?" 
 author: Vance Cureton
 © Copyright 2002

 The entire Trent Lott fiasco has been talked about and written 
 about enough, so that there won't be anything added to that 
 particular dialogue here. But the Lott affair. -- Is it an affair? Has 
 once again exposed the ugly underbelly of modern-day Republicanism. 
 The Party of Lincoln's apparent attractiveness to folks who just 
 plain aren't comfortable with the rising social prominence and 
 political relevance of African-Americans and other peoples of 
 color.

 The Republican leadership of the past 40 years or so, have no 
 one to blame but themselves for the current situation in which
 they are being attacked as a racially insensitive, if not downright,
 bigoted party. Since the failed Goldwater candidacy of 1964 the 
 Republican Party has pandered to racist whites, especially in the 
 Southern section of the country, and thus, their well-deserved 
 reputation as a party hostile to African-Americans is the result 
 of this political calculation.

 And that is exactly what it is. A calculation. Plain and simple. 
 President Johnson knew that he would lose the South when he 
 signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and his belief was not in error. 
 The American South has truly gone Republican. Through the use 
 of political campaigns that were rife with racist code-words, and 
 by virtue of candidates that were forceful and plain-spoken in 
 opposition to any legislation that would assist Southern blacks 
 in their efforts to integrate into all levels of society, the Grand Old 
 Party identified itself as the party most loyal to the old social 
 heirarchy of the pre-Civil Rights era.

 Thus, the Democrats lost the old segregationist votes in droves. 
 Southerners in Congress and outside of Congress, that were once 
 staunch Dixie Democrats, changed party affiliation. Richard Nixon 
 won strong support across the South, as did Ronald Reagan, and 
 Daddy Bush. 

 At the heart of this Republican revolution were Conservative 
 Christians. A vocal constituency that strongly opposed women's 
 rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, and progressive government
 programs of all description that were designed to aid minorities. 

 And the Republican leadership in Washington and elsewhere, 
 did nothing to counter the growing perception of their party as 
 the party for white folks. { wealthy priviledged whites in particular }
 The party that was most loyal to the concept of  "state's rights," 
 and was determined to retain the identity - religious, social, and 
 otherwise, - of the Old South.

 And what is the Old South that the Republicans sought to preserve?
 The issue of the Confederate Flag is as excellent an example as any.

 Many white Southerners defend the Confederate Flag as a part of 
 their cultural heritage. In that they are certainly correct. That red 
 and black banner is the symbol of the Confederacy. Of Robert E. Lee 
 and the Confederate capital in Richmond, Virginia. No one amongst
 the African-American minority is proposing that white Southerners
 reject their cultural heritage. - The Confederacy is an indelible part 
 of American history.

 But that flag is as harsh a symbol of the dark days of this country, 
 as any imaginable, to American blacks who are the direct descendants 
 of slaves. The Confederate Flag is an affront. Its display is an insult 
 to what the United States represents, as to freedom, liberty, and 
 equal rights for all American citizens. -- This is the exact reason why
 this country remains a magnet to freedom-seeking immigrants from 
 around the globe.

 Therefore the Confederate Flag has no business flying over the 
 Capital of any Southern State. { are you listening South Carolina? } 
 Or of being used in any official governement capacity. The South 
 lost the "War Between the States." The Union won. The Confederacy 
 is no more. If any flag should be flown on high, it is the Stars and 
 Stripes, and no other. This is the usual case - as to the outcome of 
 any military conflict. Why in this instance should there be any difference? 

 The victors celebrate. And the vanquished take their political symbols 
 and step respectfully back. 

 -- To preserve the peace. And preserve order.

 And yet, Republican candidates, time and time again, sided with 
 those vocal whites in favor of the official display of the Confederate
 flag, and against their African-American brothers on this particular 
 issue. It is only because of the fair-minded judiciary that that horrible
 symbol of racism and oppression has been relegated to the background. 

 -- Where it belongs.

 This is an issue that the Republican Party failed badly. The Ku Klux 
 Klan, white supremacists, and all those Citizen Councils of various 
 names all adore the Confederate Flag. -- And the true meaning behind 
 it, that has nothing to do with cultural heritage. 

 The Party of Abraham Lincoln should have known better.

 Another case that illustrates the two-faced { and racially insensitive } 
 campaigning style of the Republican party is the situation regarding 
 Bob Jones University. What is the fascination with this particular 
 Fundamentalist Christian school? Why does it so often occur that
 when Republican candidates find themselves in trouble, they hurry
 to display themselves at this private university?

 There are so many wonderful universities in the South. Proud schools 
 with spotless reputations and high levels of academic achievement
 by their students. Bob Jones University, must therefore, present a 
 particularly different advantage to a Republican candidate. This was 
 a university where until quite recently, if you were a white parent, and 
 if your daughter was enrolled there. -- Or if your son were enrolled there.
 You never had to spend a single moment in worry that either would 
 ever date, or God forbid - no pun intended - fall in romantic love with 
 a person of color. 

 Because interracial dating was not permitted. 

 It was against the rules.

 My, my, my...

 This sounds like a doctrine of separation of the races. So obviously, 
 the administrators at Bob Jones University, once believed, that there 
 was something righteous about keeping the young men and women 
 of the different races apart. - At the very least as it concerned matters 
 of the heart. { if it is taught that people of different races are not 
 compatible for romantic love - then what is it that that belief system
 is really about? } Only after the school's dating  policy became too 
 well-publicized, and talked about endlessly on television and in print, 
 did the University see the light, as it were. Thereafter, their policy 
 was abruptly changed.

 There is an old word that was once a very popular word in times past. 

 Miscegenation.

 The word in its most colloquial sense means race-mixing. So, if 
 a prominent Fundamentalist Christian university so recently as 
 the year 2000 had as a part of its school conduct code an edict 
 against race-mixing, is it a stretch to wonder what particular 
 constituency those Republican politicians that hurry to that 
 university whenever their candidancies are in trouble, are appealing 
 to?

 Might it be the deeply religious conservative Christian constituency? 
 Or also a constituency that is uncomfortable with the rising influence 
 of people of color. 

-- You be the judge.

 This is the game that the Republican Party has been playing, and 
 to think that African-Americans are blind to it, is naive. Human 
 beings know when they are not wanted. And where they are not 
 wanted. The Republican Party made a calculated trade-off to appeal 
 to the Fundamentalist Right -- and to bigoted, racist, segregationist
 minded "old southerners" on the Far Right, in lieu of broadening 
 the party's appeal across racial lines.

 The race-baiters in the South cling to the Republican Party because 
 the Republicans through their actions, and their political campaigns, 
 and their exclusionary policies, signaled that they welcomed such 
 support. That it was alright to vote for their candidates. That the 
 concerns of the Far Right fundamentalist crowd, would be well 
 taken care of.

 It is not the fault of the Democrats that this perception of what is 
 believed to be the true Republican agenda exists amongst blacks,
 and other minority groups.

 All Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or Daddy Bush, or even Dubya
 had to say is that they did not want the support of any type of 
 extreme individuals that harbored a racist, segregationist, mentality. 
 But, the above politicians always selected their opportunities to 
 voice opposition to such bigoted supporters carefully. And only 
 when it became an absolute politcal necessity. As Dubya did when 
 he recently renounced Trent Lott.

 Where were Dubya's pronouncements before then? Why did he 
 himself campaign at Bob Jones University in 2000? -- Only to offer 
 a politically opportunistic explanation afterwards. { and after the
 point of his campaigning there had been well-made anyway } 

 Is there any doubt that come 2004 the same old strategies will be 
 back in place?  And that the same political game will be played yet, 
 again.

 Afterall, where are all those good-ole boy segregationists to go?

 If they watch for the signs. They will know. 

 If they watch for the signs. They will know. 
 

 ReadingPost.Com
 © Copyright 2002

_______________________________

 Liberal Rights Announcement Group

 Enjoy this article? Subscribe to our list and
 have our latest liberal rants delivered right
 to your mailbox. We will never SPAM you.

 Comments sent to editor may be republished
 on our site or in our announcement list at our 
 discretion. Comments containing crude language
 and/or vulgarites will be deleted and your 
 email address permanently banned.

_______________________________

 Detective Service Or Detective Software? 
 Your Choice...

 Net Detective Software
 Web Detective Service

_______________________________
 

 ARTICLE SEARCH:
 use keywords or phrases to locate 
 other ReadingPost.Com articles

_______________________________

 Having link partnerships is one of the ways to increase the link popularity of your web site.
 The search engines have a high regard for sites that have plenty of incoming links from
 similar sites.

 Therefore, working together to achieve our goals certainly makes a lot of sense. With that
 in mind we'd like to invite you to add your site to our Political Links Directory. Only
 sites that are related to political news, social commentary and opinion, political blogs and
 rants, election websites, political activist sites, media websites, political humor and satire,
 political forums, news commentary sites both mainstream and independent, religious opinion, 
 and miscellaneous sites, that are in some manner related to politics or current events, will 
 be accepted.

 All manner of sites are welcome from those on the Far Right, to the Far Left.

 Hate sites, extremist sites, sites containing an excessive amount of vulgarity or material
 unsuitable for children or young teens { a disclaimer should be located prominently on the 
 index page } and sites promoting bigotry or intolerance of any kind, will be rejected!

 Here's our EMAIL ADDRESS. <<---

 Send this information in your email:
 * web site title
 * a brief description
 * your url address

 Here's our information to post on your site:
 * our web site title: Politics, News Analysis, and Social Commentary for American Liberals.
 * our description: Political commentary from the left, with a special emphasis on politics,
   religion, sports, culture, and current events.
 * our url address: http://readingpost.com/

 Thanks For The Link Trade!