PDA

View Full Version : Touches the heart strings.



CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-31-2011, 11:29 PM
I know a lot of you probably hate LBJ for his policies, but I have to say, his "We Shall Overcome" speech was very eloquent--and in many ways truly from the heart.

There's one excerpt from it, which is somehow very touching. Perhaps for a moment putting ideological blinders aside, we can appreciate it's beauty:

"My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Tex., in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English, and I couldn't speak much Spanish. My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast, hungry. They knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice.

They never seemed to know why people disliked them. But they knew it was so, because I saw it in their eyes. I often walked home late in the afternoon, after the classes were finished, wishing there was more that I could do. But all I knew was to teach them the little that I knew, hoping that it might help them against the hardships that lay ahead.

Somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child."

Novaheart
03-31-2011, 11:58 PM
I know a lot of you probably hate LBJ for his policies, but I have to say, his "We Shall Overcome" speech was very eloquent--and in many ways truly from the heart.

There's one excerpt from it, which is somehow very touching. Perhaps for a moment putting ideological blinders aside, we can appreciate it's beauty:

"My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Tex., in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English, and I couldn't speak much Spanish. My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast, hungry. They knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice.

They never seemed to know why people disliked them. But they knew it was so, because I saw it in their eyes. I often walked home late in the afternoon, after the classes were finished, wishing there was more that I could do. But all I knew was to teach them the little that I knew, hoping that it might help them against the hardships that lay ahead.

Somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child."


Deport illegal aliens. Every last one of them.

Notice- this comment may or may not be related to the subject at hand.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-01-2011, 12:19 AM
Unfortunately LBJ's public persona and grandstanding on his record was NOTHING more than a political ploy and did not reflect the racist he really was.

Of his efforts on civil rights he was quoted as saying "I'll have these ni**ers voting democratic for 200 years" AND he was the LEAD OPPONENT of nearly the exact bill when the Eisenhower administration proposed it.

He stripped the act of any teeth it had.


Of course you never get THAT in your high school or college lessons on civil rights.

Novaheart
04-01-2011, 12:31 AM
Unfortunately LBJ's public persona and grandstanding on his record was NOTHING more than a political ploy and did not reflect the racist he really was.

Of his efforts on civil rights he was quoted as saying "I'll have these ni**ers voting democratic for 200 years" AND he was the LEAD OPPONENT of nearly the exact bill when the Eisenhower administration proposed it.

He stripped the act of any teeth it had.


Of course you never get THAT in your high school or college lessons on civil rights.


Did he have to love black people to do the right thing? It's rather like something I"ve said before, "Every dire prediction made in 1968 has come true, and desegregation was still the right thing to do."

Rockntractor
04-01-2011, 12:43 AM
Did he have to love black people to do the right thing? It's rather like something I"ve said before, "Every dire prediction made in 1968 has come true, and desegregation was still the right thing to do."

You can't possibly be saying you preferred segregation?

NJCardFan
04-01-2011, 01:11 AM
Unfortunately LBJ's public persona and grandstanding on his record was NOTHING more than a political ploy and did not reflect the racist he really was.

Of his efforts on civil rights he was quoted as saying "I'll have these ni**ers voting democratic for 200 years" AND he was the LEAD OPPONENT of nearly the exact bill when the Eisenhower administration proposed it.

He stripped the act of any teeth it had.


Of course you never get THAT in your high school or college lessons on civil rights.

Was he right?

Apocalypse
04-01-2011, 01:12 AM
So we need to respect a man who violated civil liberties and ordered the FBI to dig up dirt on members of the press.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-01-2011, 06:44 AM
Was he right?
Yes, with the help of the press, the Democrats successfully hid the fact that THEY were the party that founded the KKK and that THEY were the party of slavery and church burnings and segregation - AND they hid the fact that the Republican party was FOUNDED on an anti-slavery foundation.

They were able to hide the fact that even on the bill that LBJ claimed was his own, REPUBLICANS supported it in FAR +higher percentages than Democrats did.

If this ever gets brought up in conversation - the left and the press will say those Democrats became Republicans so they could carry on their racist ways.

That ALSO IS A LIE.... 20 of 21 Democrat Senators that opposed the civil rights act of 1964 STAYED in the Democrat party. In addition - EVERY racist governor - EVERY significant segregationist of the era was a Democrat AND REMAINED A DEMOCRAT.

noonwitch
04-01-2011, 08:54 AM
Did he have to love black people to do the right thing? It's rather like something I"ve said before, "Every dire prediction made in 1968 has come true, and desegregation was still the right thing to do."


No, but it is interesting to reflect upon Goldwater's reasons for opposing the Civil Rights Amendment. LBJ was a racist, and Goldwater was not. Goldwater truly believed that the american people could defeat racism without changing the Consititution.

Goldwater was not wrong in his thinking-we should have been able to rid the US of racism without having to change the constitution (at least in the 60s, I don't mean the amendments added after the civil war that ended slavery). He just underestimated how pervasive racism was in this country, because it was not something he felt or participated in.

LBJ knew how pervasive racism was in this country because he was a racist at heart.

Novaheart
04-02-2011, 03:36 PM
You can't possibly be saying you preferred segregation?

I have to say that I did. The immediate and personal effect on my childhood of desegregation and forced integration was a tremendous disruption of my life. In 1968 we lived on a small farm just outside the DC line, with a DC address actually. By 1970 we had moved to a suburban tract home in another county, all because of the crime and violence which came with desegregation.

I remember sitting in the barber shop and listening to the old men talk about the predictions of what would happen in Prince George's County as a result of desegregation and the construction of Metro. Crime, white flight, ruined schools, pregnant teenagers, miscegenation, lowered property values ... it all came true.

Which answered your actual question.

Now if you meant to ask do I prefer segregation, then the answer is no. But there is a difference between stopping forced segregation and forcing integration. There is a difference between naturally occurring segregation, and forced segregation.

Early on, it became obvious that the goal of the law and school policies was not to end segregation, it was to force integration.

Novaheart
04-02-2011, 03:38 PM
No, but it is interesting to reflect upon Goldwater's reasons for opposing the Civil Rights Amendment. LBJ was a racist, and Goldwater was not. Goldwater truly believed that the american people could defeat racism without changing the Consititution.

Goldwater was not wrong in his thinking-we should have been able to rid the US of racism without having to change the constitution (at least in the 60s, I don't mean the amendments added after the civil war that ended slavery). He just underestimated how pervasive racism was in this country, because it was not something he felt or participated in.

LBJ knew how pervasive racism was in this country because he was a racist at heart.


What is your basis for belief that Goldwater was not a racist?

Constitutionally Speaking
04-02-2011, 05:10 PM
Did he have to love black people to do the right thing? It's rather like something I"ve said before, "Every dire prediction made in 1968 has come true, and desegregation was still the right thing to do."


I'm not arguing against desegregation. Racism is an evil and allowing it to manifest itself in our laws is an abomination. Desegregation HAD to happen for our moral health.

My point was that this was done for political reasons and ONLY for political reasons - and it worked beautifully towards that purpose.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-02-2011, 05:11 PM
No, but it is interesting to reflect upon Goldwater's reasons for opposing the Civil Rights Amendment. LBJ was a racist, and Goldwater was not. Goldwater truly believed that the american people could defeat racism without changing the Consititution.

Goldwater was not wrong in his thinking-we should have been able to rid the US of racism without having to change the constitution (at least in the 60s, I don't mean the amendments added after the civil war that ended slavery). He just underestimated how pervasive racism was in this country, because it was not something he felt or participated in.

LBJ knew how pervasive racism was in this country because he was a racist at heart.


You got this EXACTLY correct. Nailed it.

Novaheart
04-02-2011, 05:29 PM
I'm not arguing against desegregation. Racism is an evil and allowing it to manifest itself in our laws is an abomination. Desegregation HAD to happen for our moral health.

My point was that this was done for political reasons and ONLY for political reasons - and it worked beautifully towards that purpose.

What is your basis for declaring that racism is evil? Racism is nothing more than macro tribalism. Holding your own tribe in higher regard, wishing your tribe the most success, giving preference to your tribe in legal ways is not evil- it's family on a great scale.

What is in conflict with our national philosophy is when the law discriminates, and even that's not evil, it's just mean. It is our government which should not discriminate, our laws, our police. If you don't want to do business with Mormons, that's your choice. If the Uhuru don't want white customers, that's their business.

Novaheart
04-02-2011, 05:31 PM
I'm not arguing against desegregation. Racism is an evil and allowing it to manifest itself in our laws is an abomination. Desegregation HAD to happen for our moral health.

My point was that this was done for political reasons and ONLY for political reasons - and it worked beautifully towards that purpose.

Forced integration, forcing individuals to associate with other individuals, is in conflict with one of the primary principles of the Constitution. That was Rand Paul's point on the Civil Rights Act. And a bunch of idiots tried to make it look like he wanted to "turn the clock back."

namvet
04-03-2011, 09:17 AM
his best speech ever. I will not run for or seek re election as your prez

Odysseus
04-03-2011, 11:39 AM
I know a lot of you probably hate LBJ for his policies, but I have to say, his "We Shall Overcome" speech was very eloquent--and in many ways truly from the heart.

There's one excerpt from it, which is somehow very touching. Perhaps for a moment putting ideological blinders aside, we can appreciate it's beauty:

"My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Tex., in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English, and I couldn't speak much Spanish. My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast, hungry. They knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice.

They never seemed to know why people disliked them. But they knew it was so, because I saw it in their eyes. I often walked home late in the afternoon, after the classes were finished, wishing there was more that I could do. But all I knew was to teach them the little that I knew, hoping that it might help them against the hardships that lay ahead.

Somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child."
Why does he assume that their poverty was caused by prejudice? That's a non-sequitur. Poverty has so many factors that to assume that a group that remains poor does so only because of oppression, without taking culture, work ethics, time in the community (immigrant groups are almost always poorer than natives, but after a couple of generations, most even up the score as they assimilate) or any other factors into account is as prejudiced as assuming that they are poor because they deserve it.

No, but it is interesting to reflect upon Goldwater's reasons for opposing the Civil Rights Amendment. LBJ was a racist, and Goldwater was not. Goldwater truly believed that the american people could defeat racism without changing the Consititution.

Goldwater was not wrong in his thinking-we should have been able to rid the US of racism without having to change the constitution (at least in the 60s, I don't mean the amendments added after the civil war that ended slavery). He just underestimated how pervasive racism was in this country, because it was not something he felt or participated in.

LBJ knew how pervasive racism was in this country because he was a racist at heart.
Goldwater personally ordered the integration of the Arizona National Guard and enforced it.

his best speech ever. I will not run for or seek re election as your prez
Absolutely. And without a teleprompter. Obama could learn a thing or two from that speech.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-03-2011, 12:18 PM
Why does he assume that their poverty was caused by prejudice? That's a non-sequitur. Poverty has so many factors that to assume that a group that remains poor does so only because of oppression, without taking culture, work ethics, time in the community (immigrant groups are almost always poorer than natives, but after a couple of generations, most even up the score as they assimilate) or any other factors into account is as prejudiced as assuming that they are poor because they deserve it.

Goldwater personally ordered the integration of the Arizona National Guard and enforced it.

Absolutely. And without a teleprompter. Obama could learn a thing or two from that speech.

He's not saying one caused the other, just that in the case of his class of students, they were both poor, and hated. I guess I can understand his sentiment--I do agree with his final line, "Somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child."

Whether one causes the other or not, which I don't believe, nor do I think was his point, was that these things-prejudice, poverty, etc, are social ills of the worst kind, because in many cases it's not simply the lazy bum or the drunkard who suffers because he decided to be a bum, but his family, and his children also suffer, and worse. A child doesn't choose who he or she is born to; Therefore, a child is either lucky, and benefits from being born to good parents, or suffers when born to losers--and it's not the child's fault, but the child suffers regardless. Children's lives, their emotional state, and even their future can become impacted by such lazy bum parents.

LBJ and I both see the same problems, but we have different ideas about solving them. LBJ thought his War on Poverty would dramatically relieve or even eliminate poverty. One can argue it's merits, but I would say that even the poor in this country live much better than the poor in many, maybe even most, other nations. But I do not believe poverty can ever be eliminated, sadly. It's as much a part of the human condition as disease and death are. That does not mean one shouldn't try to fight it--After all, we don't accept that a disease is a disease and let ourselves die from it, we try to fight it off.

But I don't federal programs alone can solve the issues of prejudice, poverty and the like. They can help, but they are not a cure-all nor should they be thought of as such. A movement speaking to people on an individual level, on a moral and psychological level, can help alleviate these problems. Real community organizations--Not ACORN or the like, but real organizations that act with the purpose of bettering a community can help. Church organizations and the like can help. The problem can never fully by solved but it can be fought tooth and nail.

My feeling is that if a drunk ruins his own life and dies in the street by himself, that's his problem, and his alone. But if a drunk ruins his life, and brings his children and family into the ragged squalor of the streets with him, it then becomes society's problem and society must act.

Odysseus
04-03-2011, 05:53 PM
He's not saying one caused the other, just that in the case of his class of students, they were both poor, and hated. I guess I can understand his sentiment--I do agree with his final line, "Somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child."

Actually, he is. His first statement implies a causal relationship between a lack of breakfast and prejudice:

My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Tex., in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English, and I couldn't speak much Spanish. My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast, hungry. They knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice.

He's either linking the two, or he's a very poor writer.


Whether one causes the other or not, which I don't believe, nor do I think was his point, was that these things-prejudice, poverty, etc, are social ills of the worst kind, because in many cases it's not simply the lazy bum or the drunkard who suffers because he decided to be a bum, but his family, and his children also suffer, and worse. A child doesn't choose who he or she is born to; Therefore, a child is either lucky, and benefits from being born to good parents, or suffers when born to losers--and it's not the child's fault, but the child suffers regardless. Children's lives, their emotional state, and even their future can become impacted by such lazy bum parents.
But nowhere does Johnson say anything about the parents being bums or lazy. He only cites two social ills, poverty and prejudice. It isn't the indolence or ignorance of a parent, but "poverty and hatred" that leave "scars on the hopeful face of a young child." Johnson blamed poverty on prejudice because he was selling a massively expensive social program and guilt was more effective an inducement than logic.


LBJ and I both see the same problems, but we have different ideas about solving them. LBJ thought his War on Poverty would dramatically relieve or even eliminate poverty. One can argue it's merits, but I would say that even the poor in this country live much better than the poor in many, maybe even most, other nations. But I do not believe poverty can ever be eliminated, sadly. It's as much a part of the human condition as disease and death are. That does not mean one shouldn't try to fight it--After all, we don't accept that a disease is a disease and let ourselves die from it, we try to fight it off.

But Johnson didn't even believe it. Every indicator is that he was a cynical manipulator who wanted to perpetuate his party's power by creating the same kind of constituency that FDR did. His Great Society created multi-generational dependency on government largess among huge swathes of the population, solely for the purpose of maintaining Democratic Party hegemony.


But I don't federal programs alone can solve the issues of prejudice, poverty and the like. They can help, but they are not a cure-all nor should they be thought of as such. A movement speaking to people on an individual level, on a moral and psychological level, can help alleviate these problems. Real community organizations--Not ACORN or the like, but real organizations that act with the purpose of bettering a community can help. Church organizations and the like can help. The problem can never fully by solved but it can be fought tooth and nail.

My feeling is that if a drunk ruins his own life and dies in the street by himself, that's his problem, and his alone. But if a drunk ruins his life, and brings his children and family into the ragged squalor of the streets with him, it then becomes society's problem and society must act.
And what society can and should do is remove the family from the drunk, but that's the one thing that LBJ's programs didn't do. Instead, they poured money into the drunk's pockets so that he could pour his drink of choice down his gullet, and ensured his vote for generations.

noonwitch
04-04-2011, 04:07 PM
What is your basis for belief that Goldwater was not a racist?


He went out of his way to treat the native americans well in Arizona. He went to meet with them and see what their needs were. That was the largest minority group in his state at the time. He stated that he thought that americans could stand together and defeat racism by boycotting business that had racist practices.

It's interesting to look back and consider whether that would have worked or not. I don't know if it would have, but Goldwater did not oppose the Civil Rights Act because he was a racist, he opposed it because he had faith in the American people to right a wrong without legislating it.