Jim Crow Laws: What were they?

[PassionFruit]

Jim Crow laws were enacted to enforce segregation. Many only know these laws as "separate but equal" and things like separate drinking fountains. However, Jim Crow wasn't only laws, it was a way of life and violating Jim Crow etiquette could would result in violence.

The Jim Crow laws and system of etiquette were undergirded by violence, real and threatened. Blacks who violated Jim Crow norms, for example, drinking from the white water fountain or trying to vote, risked their homes, their jobs, even their lives. Whites could physically beat blacks with impunity. Blacks had little legal recourse against these assaults because the Jim Crow criminal justice system was all-white: police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and prison officials. Violence was instrumental for Jim Crow. It was a method of social control. The most extreme forms of Jim Crow violence were lynchings.

Lynchings were public, often sadistic, murders carried out by mobs. Between 1882, when the first reliable data were collected, and 1968, when lynchings had become rare, there were 4,730 known lynchings, including 3,440 black men and women. Most of the victims of Lynch Law were hanged or shot, but some were burned at the stake, castrated, beaten with clubs, or dismembered. In the mid-1800s, whites constituted the majority of victims (and perpetrators); however, by the period of Radical Reconstruction, blacks became the most frequent lynching victims. This is an early indication that lynchinWhat was Jim Crowg was used as an intimidation tool to keep blacks, in this case the newly freed people, "in their places."

I bolded that last part because mainstream history doesn't seem to go much into detail as to what happened after slavery. Also there's not much emphasis on the full extent of Jim Crow.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Jim Crow laws were enacted to enforce segregation. Many only know these laws as "separate but equal" and things like separate drinking fountains. However, Jim Crow wasn't only laws, it was a way of life and violating Jim Crow etiquette could would result in violence.

I bolded that last part because mainstream history doesn't seem to go much into detail as to what happened after slavery. Also there's not much emphasis on the full extent of Jim Crow.

Jim Crow has sadly returned in differing ways....as noted elsewhere. Michelle Alexander discusses it in her book "The New Jim Crow" with regards to the prison system.

The prison systems in the U.S. have been notorious for being corrupt in multiple ways ...paticularly when seeing the history of Debt-Slavery and how many black men were jailed for minor crimes (sometimes false accusations) and creating much of the culture of fatherlessness that damaged many familes-----leading and the consequence being that many privatized organizations or government programs are developed to address the "symptoms" they see while not realizing how many are behind the causes.

And on Jim Crow, it was indeed a lifestyle of terrorism. As said elsewhere:

• What if the Confederacy Had Won? A Counterfactual Contemplation

For anyone interested in further info on the ways that the Civil War wasn't just during the time of Lincoln - but also went even further past that era...

Reconstruction The Second Civil War {1 of 2} (Full Documentary) - YouTube
Reconstruction The Second Civil War {2 of 2} - YouTube

Black Slavery: AFTER The Civil War ? Part 1 of 2
Black Slavery : AFTER The Civil War ? Part 2 of 2
[/CENTER]

The KKK was an arm of the Democratic Party.

Jim Crow impacted blacks of all political shades - and there were many Republicans who couldn't care less about what happened to Blacks just as there were many Democrats who did not care for Blacks. There was racism outside of Jim Crow in the South since it was present in the North as well when it came to White Supremacy and others NOT AFFILIATED politically with the KKK still sanctioned violence/lynchings of blacks in the North frequently (in the name of Christ many times), with blacks having to resist that as much as they had resistance battles in the South (more discussed in The Black West: A Documentary and Pictorial History of the African American ... - William Loren Katz - Google Books ). Lynching was not just a reality of Jim Crow -

Blacks who don't care for the Republican party are not oblivious to the fact that it was originally the DIXIE Crats or Democratic party who supported slavery. Things switched from the Republican party to Jim Crow later on in time (with others having issue with much in the Republican party today when it comes to the extensive ways that the same mindsets are present there as they were in the earlier versions of the Democractic party - more discussed in Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats and Black Conservatives) ....

Outside of that, we also have the history of the Abolitionist groups and leaders within them who spoke on the matter - with great individuals such as Fredrick Douglass (Republican). Others today follow in his footsteps - this is seen in those who are known as Fredrick Douglass Republicans (more here) and Black/Minority Founding Fathers: Truth or Fiction and How Significant is this today?

Even others who vote neither Democrat or Republican have noted the ways that the Republican party evolved over time

Blacks Don't Know Their Political History - YouTube

History is history...and it's not an issue tackling..

As said before, of course people understand that the Democrats were a big part of the original KKK over 150 years ago. Nonetheless, Democrats were on the other side in 1948 with the addition of civil rights and on into the fights for Civil Rights in the 60s, losing Southern white voters to the Republican Party.

As it is, J. Michael Martinez, the author of a 2007 book "Carpetbaggers, Calvary and the KKK," noted how many angry Southern whites during the 1860s and 1870s were Democrats and a smaller number of them joined the KKK - and yet despite where there is some historic link between Democrats and the KKK, Martinez said it is misleading to say that the hate group was started by the Democratic Party because it was more of a grassroots creation.

Also, as Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, wrote:

"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."​

Additionally, Elaine Frantz Parsons, an associate professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, noted that that most post-Civil War southern whites were Democrats who were unhappy with Republican policies on Reconstruction while large numbers of newly-freed slaves were Republicans...further noting that it is "not surprising that the Reconstruction era Klan would have been very largely Democrats attacking Republicans," Parsons said in an e-mail. "But this simply does not map well at all onto the party structure we know today. Among other things, the Republicans (during Reconstruction) were condemned as the party of big government and as wanting to centralize authority on the federal level."





It has never been the case that all who are either Liberal or Progressive or Democrat have not addressed where the KKK arose out of the Democratic party - nor has it been the case where Republicans or others who are Conservative have never had it where they were very close to the KKK and the racial politics of the Jim Crow/lynching party.

Hey!

I know we've all heard about this...the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, lead by Abraham Lincoln, who fought against the Southern States (which were governed by the Democratic Party) in order to abolish slavery and keep them from seceding. The Ku Klux Klan were founded by Democrats, who opposed the fact that Afro-Americans were no longer property, and they sought to subjucate the black majority in the South through such things as the Jim Crow Laws and lynching (the Republican Party were firmly opposed to these). It is for these reasons that Afro-Americans generally voted Republican, if they were allowed to vote of course (Democrats were generally uncomfortable with giving blacks the vote).

Some members of the Republican Party actually endorsed miscegenation between blacks and whites, in order to make the people more integrated. Meanwhile each and every anti-miscegenation law proposal was created by Democrats. Woodrow Wilson, Democrat president, said that the Birth of a Nation (a horrid racist movie supporting the KKK) was a great film of American history. To a white supremacist, the Republican Party was seen as the ''party of the negro.''

However nowadays only 15% of Afro-Americans vote Republican. Most white supremacists, along with the founders of Stormfront, identify themselves as Republican. .

If I may say,

I think it'd help answer your question if you were able to investigate the video known as "Runaway Slave" - with C.L. Bryant....on the issue of what happened when it came to the transformation of political parties. ..more discussed in the thread entitled "Runaway Slave" - Has Anyone Seen this film on slavery via Nanny State?

Rev C.L. Bryant Confronts Black America...Runaway Slave, Best Documentary​

Some of this has been discussed before years ago when it comes to the long-term history of racism in the Republican party and the many comments made that were often overlooked even as they complained about racism - as seen in the thread A Republican takes Responsibility​

 

[PassionFruit]

I took the time to read the entire thread you started, I also wanted to point out another element about the War on Drugs was its' attack on Black single mothers. The crack baby myth was created to fuel the War on Drugs, and to fuel the crack baby myth, meant demonizing Black single mothers. They were already demonized as "welfare queens" (which also turned out to be a myth). But that's another discussion for another time.

Anyways, I just wanted to post some information on who Jim Crow.

"Come listen all you galls and boys,
I'm going to sing a little song,
My name is Jim Crow.
Weel about and turn about and do jis so,
Eb'ry time I weel about I jump Jim Crow.

These words are from the song, "Jim Crow," as it appeared in sheet music written by Thomas Dartmouth "Daddy" Rice. Rice, a struggling "actor" (he did short solo skits between play scenes) at the Park Theater in New York, happened upon a black person singing the above song -- some accounts say it was an old black slave who walked with difficulty, others say it was a ragged black stable boy. Whether modeled on an old man or a young boy we will never know, but we know that in 1828 Rice appeared on stage as "Jim Crow" -- an exaggerated, highly stereotypical black character.

Rice, a white man, was one of the first performers to wear blackface makeup -- his skin was darkened with burnt cork. His Jim Crow song-and-dance routine was an astounding success that took him from Louisville to Cincinnati to Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and finally to New York in 1832. He also performed to great acclaim in London and Dublin. By then "Jim Crow" was a stock character in minstrel shows, along with counterparts Jim Dandy and Zip Coon. Rice's subsequent blackface characters were Sambos, Coons, and Dandies. White audiences were receptive to the portrayals of blacks as singing, dancing, grinning fools.

Who was Jim Crow

It also touches upon the history of Black face.

 

[Scottmcc1]

This is a good book on black slavery after the Civil War.
The Emancipation of Robert Sadler

I highly recommend it. You will not put it down.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Who was Jim Crow

It also touches upon the history of Black face.

What's fascinating to consider is the fact that all of this was happening even when there were already others of influence in politics who were very much black - and many did not realize it. I'm reminded of something one of my close friends noted to me recently when saying that Jackie O (President John F. Kennedy's wife) came from a mulatto background (Afro-Dutch, to be specific) and many others like her passed off as white despite having a black background.

For reference:

• Surprises in the Family Tree

• Michelle Obama Is Not Our First Black First Lady? 10 Fascinating Things You Didn't Know About Black History | Alternet

• Van Salees | FRONTLINE | PBS

• Light, Bright, and Damned Near White: Biracial and Triracial Culture in America - Stephanie Rose Bird - Google Books

 

[PassionFruit]

Ethnic Notions is on YouTube, but it's good documentary detailing how racial caricatures of Black people came into existence and why. There's info about Jim Crow in it, but I think it does a nice job of showing how ubiquitous racism is. I know it's dated (came out in the late 1980's I think) but it's still relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypwb_2E2LYI

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Ethnic Notions is on YouTube, but it's good documentary detailing how racial caricatures of Black people came into existence and why. There's info about Jim Crow in it, but I think it does a nice job of showing how ubiquitous racism is. I know it's dated (came out in the late 1980's I think) but it's still relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypwb_2E2LYI

Saw that one before and I thought it had a lot of good points.

On the issue of Jim Crow and some of the stereotypes that can come from it, I came across this recently and thought it was fascinating in regards to how not everyone in Jim Crow was automatically unable to connect.

For reference:

• A segregation that was never black and white: Gordon Parks?s photographs of 50s Alabama | Art and design | The Guardian

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Jim Crow laws were enacted to enforce segregation. Many only know these laws as "separate but equal" and things like separate drinking fountains. However, Jim Crow wasn't only laws, it was a way of life and violating Jim Crow etiquette could would result in violence.

There are many ways in which others do not realize the extent of Jim Crow Laws and their damage..

• How black land became white sand: The racial erosion of the U.S. coasts

• The Land Was Ours ? Andrew W. Kahrl | Harvard University Press

• Race, Capitalism, and the Rise and Fall of Black Beach Communities | Southern Spaces

​

The book did an excellent job showing how beaches and waterfronts became sites of racial contest - in ways many do not know about or consider even though beach land was often given to blacks.

And in addition to that, as it concerns how fighting Jim Crow Laws was done out of inspiration for what happened in other places around the world, you may wish to check out the following:

Jim Crow and Apartheid (segregation systems in Racist America and the Afrikaner South Africa) - YouTube

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Saw that one before and I thought it had a lot of good points.

On the issue of Jim Crow and some of the stereotypes that can come from it, I came across this recently and thought it was fascinating in regards to how not everyone in Jim Crow was automatically unable to connect.

For reference:

• A segregation that was never black and white: Gordon Parks?s photographs of 50s Alabama | Art and design | The Guardian

Taking it further on differing groups interacting, I was not aware of the ways in which other groups existed together in certain venues as was the case with Jews and Black during the Jim Crow days and the era of Black Codes. Specifically, many would not think that baseball was an area in which other groups came together but it actually united both Jews and Blacks together in breaking the color barrier.

For more, one can check out the following documentary which focuses on Jewish social activism, and the Jewish efforts to help break the color barrier and racially integrate major league baseball in the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbt6ElVxorg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIQXWdi_zWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0myQ2Mz9df8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDtiLX63FQE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTIvRESJ1Cg

There's also this one as well...on the ways both the Japanese and the Blacks during the Jim Crow era...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s1nTDFSpF8

 

[PassionFruit]

Taking it further on differing groups interacting, I was not aware of the ways in which other groups existed together in certain venues as was the case with Jews and Black during the Jim Crow days and the era of Black Codes. Specifically, many would not think that baseball was an area in which other groups came together but it actually united both Jews and Blacks together in breaking the color barrier.

For more, one can check out the following documentary which focuses on Jewish social activism, and the Jewish efforts to help break the color barrier and racially integrate major league baseball in the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbt6ElVxorg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIQXWdi_zWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0myQ2Mz9df8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDtiLX63FQE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTIvRESJ1Cg

Thanks. I'm also starting another thread about integration. It may be somewhat controversial, but would welcome your input on the subject.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks. I'm also starting another thread about integration. It may be somewhat controversial, but would welcome your input on the subject.

I would definitely love to join in whenever I get the chance - I am currently in an intense discussion on the subject of Native Americans (which I would love for you to join in whenever you get the chance if going here) but of course I'm game for those issues which need to be discussed.

 

[now faith]

I find it strange in the political arena,that people of color vote for the party that promotes Genocide of African-American and poor or anyone of color.

Margaret Sanger had her vision come to pass with planned parenthood, these death houses are found in minority areas.

It is estimated that 25% of the African American people in America were aborted.


Eugenics was used as well, all the Jim Crown laws and devious deeds brought against people were not only against African Americans.

White people in poverty,Native Americans as well have been victims.

I cannot Stand politics of either party,but a pro life stance seemed to prevail in the Republican ranks.

I would love to see the Black community promote the the anti Aborition movement.

 

[Sistrin]

Jim Crow laws were enacted to enforce segregation. Many only know these laws as "separate but equal" and things like separate drinking fountains. However, Jim Crow wasn't only laws, it was a way of life and violating Jim Crow etiquette could would result in violence.

Here is what you probably won't find in the avalanche of articles linked and the countless hours of youtube videos posted (the only criteria for posting of which is they make some passing reference to the topic). Jim Crow laws were entirely the product of the Democrat party.

Following the Compromise of 1877 the Old South fell within the grip of the Democrat Party. The party immediately began attempts to reestablish the practice of one of its central tenets, white supremacy. Quote:

"Once discriminatory laws were approved in principle by the Supreme Court, such laws spread quickly throughout the South. According to the Civil Rights Foundation, “Given the green light, Southern states began to limit the voting right to those who owned property or could read well, to those whose grandfathers had been able to vote, to those with ‘good characters,’ to those who paid poll taxes. In 1896, Louisiana had 130,334 registered black voters. Eight years later, only 1,342, one percent, could pass the state’s new rules."

Jim Crow laws were embraced by southern Democrats in response and opposition to Republican reconstruction policies. They were often enforced by another invention of the Democrat Party, the Ku Klux Klan. Quote:

"Jim Crow culture was enforced in part by local police, but the worst violence was perpetrated by unorganized mobs, often in white-instigated race riots, and by organized terror groups. The Ku Klux Klan was the largest and best known white supremacist organization operating during the Jim Crow era. While the Klan began as social club aping college fraternities, it quickly transformed into a full-fledged terror network. The Klan was primarily a collection of local groups. The first person recognized as the overall leader of the Klan, Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest, was named Grand Wizard of the Klan at an 1867 convention.25 Forrest was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1868. In 1869, Forrest disbanded the central organization of the Klan, but the local branches continued to operate independently.

According to History.com, “Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstructionera policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s."

Source: http://www.theacru.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ACRU-the-truth-about-jim-crow_v2.pdf

Another example is the 1922 battle over the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill. The bill was introduced by Leonidas Dyer, a Republican representative from St. Louis. It was passed in the House but filibustered to death by Democrats in the Senate. The bill would have imposed penalties of fines and imprisonment for those convicted of lynching in federal court. The Democrats actually argued such legislation would be "unconstitutional."

Contrary to revisionist history, the ideals inherent in Jim Crow laws didn't fade with the repeal of said laws. Lyndon Johnson, for the record a Democrat icon, summed up the feelings and motivations within the Democrat party concerning support for the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Quote from LBJ himself:

"These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relentless-conservative/the-democratic-partys-two_b_933995.html

Someone will undoubtedly respond with the usual lie that yesterday's Democrats were really Republicans. But before you consider that canard consider this comment made in 2004 by Senator Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, made while he was Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Quote:

"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."

My sense is the only argument you may have ever been exposed to is the one which claims only evil Republicans ever long for the good old days when Afican-Americans knew their place. If so, you may need to rethink that.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here is what you probably won't find in the avalanche of articles linked and the countless hours of youtube videos posted (the only criteria for posting of which is they make some passing reference to the topic).

Not certain why you chose to make passing commentary on things I was sharing with Passion Fruit and that she noted appreciation fora (as has happened before in older conversation when you were asked to please quit following me/doing personal discussion - from Mar 28, 2015 to Apr 1, 2015. Nonetheless, it's a bit of a weak stance having to make commentary on others in attempt to poison a well/disparage a source rather than actually showing ability to deal with material means little in discussion.

Unfortunately, as nothing said in your comments actually dealt with the topic as laid out or actually showed ability to stay focused on the topic, perhaps it would be best to be more one may try to be respectful to the author of the post on the subject since it was not a discussion of all things Democrat being off - and the author of the OP has already spoken on that reality, just as others did.

And the articles we discussed - from Jim Crow in its impact with businesses to Jim Crow's impact on land development and many other things - already discussed the ways Jim Crow was developed originally in the KKK party and evolved in other parties from there.

Had you read, you would have already noted where it was already stated that Jim Crow laws were embraced by southern Democrats just as they were embraced by Republicans at many points when it comes to Black Codes in the North and many other places. This is a basic fact - and it's rather moot claiming as you did "you probably won't find in the avalanche of articles linked and the countless hours of youtube videos posted (the only criteria for posting of which is they make some passing reference to the topic)" since all you gave in that response was ad hominem. It is inconsequential talking on 'endless hours' in exaggeration when you give out a link that takes hours to investigate point for point - so unless you wish to be inconsistent, one needs to have a better argument. Moreover, it is pointless claiming a video on YouTube (referenced from several museums and scholars) is only "passing reference to a topic" when you failed at actually showing what the video itself was about. You cannot speak on a topic in a source without showing any real awareness of what was said directly in the source.

But beyond that, as said before, it really does not reflect well when one was asked to cease conversation with others and yet continues despite what moderation noted (as there's an inability to avoid personal commentary on others and a bit of obsession seen in being unable to not follow others). It was asked before for you to stop following me around - and that has not been honored, in addition to the fact that your case is not even solid ....but this was already addressed before.

That said, seriously, please quit following others/doing personal discussion since CF does not allow it. And it does not make your case solid.

 

[Sistrin]

Unfortunately, as nothing said in what was given in your material either dealt with the topic or actually showed ability to stay focused on the topic...

This is the only type of response you are ever capable of. Sad, really.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is the only type of response you are ever capable of. Sad, really.

As said before, if you are only able to react with commentary that is personal (not allowed) rather than deal with the topic of the thread/material alone and instead choose to disparage material instead of dealing with it, it is an unfortunate problem you need to deal with before commenting. Moreover, as information you gave was addressed already by myself and Passion Fruit before you doubted what she investigated/acted as if she was ignorant to the things you suggested, there does not seem to be real listening occurring.

Respectfully, It is inconsequential what kind of responses you personally want to feel on others, as what is of focus is the fact that you have chosen intentionally to follow others in discussions when you were warned not to a year ago and moderators spoke on the issue. Going out of the way to follow people still when you were asked not to shows that one's stalking at this point since no one has sought you out so little basis for it here. It does not respect the OP engaging in personal discussion.

It can be taken to Members Complaint if going off topic since it is not considerate/was warned on with other threads (as you were already asked to avoid posters) and it has been spoken on before when mods spoke on the issue.

 

[Sistrin]

As said before, if you are only able to react rather than deal with the topic of the thread...

Apparently you failed to notice I responded to Passion Fruit, and not you. However if you are unable to understand my response concerning Jim Crow laws was in response to questions concerning Jim Crow laws, then please, take your sensitivities to the mods. If crying helps, go right ahead.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Apparently you failed to notice I responded to Passion Fruit, and not you. However if you are unable to understand my response concerning Jim Crow laws was in response to questions concerning Jim Crow laws,

Apparently, you were already asked to avoid posters year ago and stay civil by both mods and others, so it's it is a moot point, as again you were asked as were others to not do personal discussion (including passing comments on others which still qualify) - and making commentary about others postings since only she and I were talking and we've done discussion with her sharing YouTube or link - the focus being on CONTENT, which you've yet to deal with in any kind of academic or scholastic way.

And as said before, had you read BEFORE jumping into discussion with personal discussion, you would have dealt with the fact that we already discussed (in the information given) how the Democrats supported KKK/Jim Crow in its original development. That's not a new fact nor is it something Black people in this discussion are unaware of....

And this is something that has already been discussed before elsewhere when you jumped before assuming people did not know....insulting blacks aware of their history in the process. As said before:

To place this comment into proper context you would have to admit the primary beneficiaries of Jim Crow laws were Democrats. The primary defenders of said laws were also Democrats, guys such as Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Bilbo, and Lyndon Johnson. Those who pushed for enactment of the various civil rights bills were Republicans. A look at the voting records will show the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported at a much higher rate by Republicans than Democrats.

Jim Crow impacted blacks of all political shades - and there were many Republicans who couldn't care less about what happened to Blacks just as there were many Democrats who did not care for Blacks. There was racism outside of Jim Crow in the South since it was present in the North as well when it came to White Supremacy and others NOT AFFILIATED politically with the KKK still sanctioned violence/lynchings of blacks in the North frequently (in the name of Christ many times), with blacks having to resist that as much as they had resistance battles in the South (more discussed in The Black West: A Documentary and Pictorial History of the African American ... - William Loren Katz - Google Books ). Lynching was not just a reality of Jim Crow -

Blacks who don't care for the Republican party are not oblivious to the fact that it was originally the DIXIE Crats or Democratic party who supported slavery. Things switched from the Republican party to Jim Crow later on in time (with others having issue with much in the Republican party today when it comes to the extensive ways that the same mindsets are present there as they were in the earlier versions of the Democractic party - more discussed in Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats and Black Conservatives) ..

​

Outside of that, we also have the history of the Abolitionist groups and leaders within them who spoke on the matter - with great individuals such as Fredrick Douglass (Republican). Others today follow in his footsteps - this is seen in those who are known as Fredrick Douglass Republicans (more here) and Black/Minority Founding Fathers: Truth or Fiction and How Significant is this today?

Even others who vote neither Democrat or Republican have noted the ways that the Republican party evolved over time

Blacks Don't Know Their Political History - YouTube

History is history...and it's not an issue tackling..

There were hundreds of various civil rights bills pushed BY Democrats - to say otherwise would not be consistent with what actually occurred in history. President John F. Kennedy announced on TV on June 11, 1963 that he would push for a civil rights bill after he met with the congressional Republican leadership. For Kennedy knew that even though his party ruled, no civil rights bill would ever see the light of day without significant support of the GOP leadership. Later on, LBJ fought to build a congressional majority – which he did with the help of the Republicans. The result was that the law passed the House 290 for and 130 against, including every House member from Alabama voting no. And of that 290 majority, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans.

Historically, of course, we also have it where the 1964 Act was almost not passed. For Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, filibustered the bill in an attempt to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) saved the civil rights law from defeat by rallying Senate Republicans for a cloture vote to stop the Democrat-led filibuster. Times reporters Kathleen Hennessey, Richard Simon, and Alexei Koseff wrote “Since Democrats led the passage of civil rights legislation that marchers pushed for in 1963, Republicans have struggled to recover with black voters”.

As said best in Steele says GOP fought hard for civil rights bills in 1960s | PolitiFact (for an excerpt):

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

The primary reason that Republican support was higher than Democratic support -- even though the legislation was pushed hard by a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson -- is that the opposition to the bill primarily came from Southern lawmakers. In the mid 1960s, the South was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the Republican Party was the leading force against slavery and its legacy. Because of this history, the Democratic Party in the 1960s was divided between Southern Democrats, most of whom opposed civil rights legislation, and Democrats from outside the South who more often than not supported it. ..This pattern showed clearly in the House vote. Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of Republicans -- 141 for, just four against -- while Southern Democrats were strongly opposed, by a margin of 11 yeas to 92 nays.....Democrats deserve credit for being the driving force behind the legislation, our experts said, particularly Johnson, who had only been in office for three months yet who staked his own re-election prospects on a tough, divisive legislative battle. Other crucial Democratic players were Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half....To be sure, Republican support was not unanimous. Most notably, the party's 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act and stuck to that position during the campaign (which he lost to Johnson in a landslide). And Yale University political scientist David Mayhew notes that the large Republican vote totals for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were not replicated in other key civil rights battles, such as an earlier one relating to fair employment practices in 1949 and 1950 and a subsequent one on fair housing in 1966.​

As it concerns the Civil Rights era, there are multiple cases where both Republicans and Democrats were equal on the issue of voting on issues - but there can be no escaping where there's a lot of revisionist history when it comes to trying to separate Dr. Martin Luther King from the background he came from and advocated. As noted elsewhere, Dr.Martin Luther King was often called a "Communist" (wrongly) simply because of his leanings toward Democratic socialism and alternatives apart from capitalism...for both poor whites/blacks and all.

Martin Luther King was a Socialist! - YouTube
Martin Luther King, Jr. on Income Inequality and Redistribution of Wealth + James Baldwin - YouTube

The issue for others in the Voting Rights Act that was passed was who was supporting others with sustained support over time...centuries.

It doesn't go well with the meme that the danger is is only on the Left and salvation solely on the right.

Passion Fruit and I already covered this issue before long ago....yet you came into discussion with the following:

Contrary to revisionist history, the ideals inherent in Jim Crow laws didn't fade with the repeal of said laws. Lyndon Johnson, for the record a Democrat icon, summed up the feelings and motivations within the Democrat party concerning support for the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Quote from LBJ himself:

"These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relentless-conservative/the-democratic-partys-two_b_933995.html

You bringing up a quote from Huffingtonpost was needless since it assumed people in this discussion did not already cover that, as no one at ANY point in discussion said that Jim Crow laws faded with the repeal of the laws....so as said before, it'd be better for you to come into discussion actually able to listen....and not assume before speaking.

Jim Crow was a complicated reality and Black people in this discussion are aware of it. So please be respectful before trying to talk to others as if they didn't study.

take your sensitivities to the mods. If crying helps, go right ahead.

Talking on 'crying' does not demonstrate an inability to actually stay focused on the topic. The subject of the OP is the subject - and Passion Fruit and I already discussed the things earlier that you claimed were not talked on since you jumped in without dealing with what was said. This has already been warned on before with keeping threads civil - and what moderators have said is being disrespected.

And as said before, personal discussion simply shows more inability to actually deal with content without being able to be objective - and as you were asked to stop commenting n what others say, being unable to stop commentary, it's evident You are stalking, as said before, since you were warned not to discuss with other posters or follow them around/make commentary. Either one respects CF in what they note or they don't. But personal discussion has little to do with the subject of the OP - and engaging in it as you're doing does not show a real understanding of the topic of the OP anyhow.

Please be civil.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I find it strange in the political arena,that people of color vote for the party that promotes Genocide of African-American and poor or anyone of color.

Margaret Sanger had her vision come to pass with planned parenthood, these death houses are found in minority areas.

It is estimated that 25% of the African American people in America were aborted.


Eugenics was used as well, all the Jim Crown laws and devious deeds brought against people were not only against African Americans.
I cannot Stand politics of either party,but a pro life stance seemed to prevail in the Republican ranks.
I would love to see the Black community promote the the anti Aborition movement.

. I've done presentations on the history of Planned Parenthood/the foundations of it which were racist - if aware of documentaries such as "MAAFA 21 THE BLACK HOLOCAUST"

It's an excellent documentary discussing the reality of how Jim Crow and the practices of Margret Sanger tied together - with Republican AND Democratic support unfortunately. It is something that definitely needs to be understood when seeing how much the restrictions with Jim Crow influenced others to be more open to Margret Sanger in her ideas.

White people in poverty,Native Americans as well have been victims.

Indeed...and unfortunately, they were impacted as well by many aspects of Jim Crow.

People did the same thing in MLK's day and other scholars such as Dr. Michelle Alexander have spoken on that matter when pointing out how Martin Luther King pointed to the nature of Jim Crow laws being prominently based on class division - and for more, go here ( https://soundcloud.com/https%3A%2F%2Fsoundcloud.com%2Fmipdo%2Frare-mlk-jr-on-how-the-races ). As she noted:

Check out this short clip from a MLK speech that is rarely heard, explaining how wealthy white elites used the media to prevent poor whites and the descendants of slaves from uniting to challenge an unjust economic and social order in the late 1800s. The desire to destroy a growing inter-racial Populist movement for economic justice led white elites to deliberately and strategically stir up feelings of white racial resentment and superiority. They aimed to turn the white poor against their new black allies, permanently disenfranchise blacks, and guarantee the perpetuation of a system that kept most Southern whites desperate and poor, and that kept all blacks defined as less than human. The only thing poor whites got in return was an empty feeling of superiority - at least they weren't black. That's how the old Jim Crow was born. ​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Jim Crow laws were enacted to enforce segregation. Many only know these laws as "separate but equal" and things like separate drinking fountains. However, Jim Crow wasn't only laws, it was a way of life and violating Jim Crow etiquette could would result in violence.
.

Something you may find interesting...

From the movie called "Runaway Slave, The Documentary with CL Bryant", I was very glad they did this segment as to why others tend to listen to certain parties more than others. And yes, this is why people need to know their history on how parties shifted.

For more:

• -S.C. Republican Pins Hopes On Urban Blacks

As said best there, "In other countries, especially those with a parliamentary form of government, there can be many parties. But in America, you have have the big two, Democrats and Republicans, and a few smaller parties that lack a record of sustained success. This means that particular constituents and interest groups are forced to form coalitions with other groups that support one of the dominant parties. That often leads to uncomfortable alliances. But this is the reality of American politics. And in fact, you will find many African Americans at BOTH the conservative and progressive ends of the spectrum who are not entirely comfortable with the Democrats."


Fredrick Douglass Frederick Douglass Republicans are one group that has been trying to raise awareness on this issue and how many blacks were always for land ownership/development and those who freed themselves were very wary of government promises to prosper them when seeing the history they went through ....causing them to be very much for development on their own. And in the world of Black Codes that impacted others throughout the U.S (even outside the realm of Jim Crow), we have a history where we've been on our own.

• Freedom Colonies: Independent Black Texans in the Time of Jim Crow.