Belowdecks, Commenters Mike K. and Bartender Cabbie

Are having a robust exchange on the history of racism in America.

They took the conversation begun here in a very different (and more textured) direction that where it began and I felt it deserved to be hauled up to the front page for further consideration


Mike.K.

"Historically", the Democrats were the party of farmers and laborers, as well as the "populists", while the Republicans were the party of the upper class, the industrial magnates, and the urban elite. Because the Democrats were the party of the people, they were also the party of religion. The Democrats were the ones who would quote the Bible, while the Republicans though it was unseemly to be too religious in public.

I can't find my copy of "Idiot America", but it has a good breakdown of the driving out of the Dixiecrats in 1964. This was the Southern racist rump of the Democrats, with a bit of the Christopaths mixed in. (The Christian fundamentalists largely stayed out of politics, but those that got involved were largely Dixiecrats.) The Dixiecrat movement was somewhat like our Tea Party movement today, being a "grassroots" movements based almost entirely on racism and small government for the landed whites and authoritarian regime for "others". It became so influential that some politicians in the South actually ran as "Dixiecrat" instead of "Democrat".

As establishmentarianism became entrenched in the federal government, the Dixiecrats were driven out of the Democrat party. As I understand it, it was a real bell, book, and candle event at the '64 national convention. This also gave the Democrat party national leverage over the Republican base in the mid 60's, as it proved to a populace afraid of radical changes (like the dirty f'ing hippies) that they would not be beholden to their more radical elements. This is one of the things that forced the hands of the Republicans to rebuke the John Birch society a few years later.

However, while the Republicans thought having truly crazy and paranoid people like the Birchers in their midst was dangerous, they found segregationist racism perfectly acceptable. Thus was born the Southern Strategy.

About a decade later, the Republicans began courting the conservative evangelicals, who had little involvement in politics except a few being burned by the Dixiecrat purge. Thus was formed the Values Voters Coalition and the Family Values era.

Fast forward a few more decades. After allowing the racists and christopaths to romp freely in their political house, or as Driftglass so wonderfully put it, letting the rabid dog butt-scoot across the duvet and occasionally drop a still-bloody hand at their masters' feet, they re-embraced the Birchers. The John Birch Society became a co-sponsor of CPAC.

So,

Instead of saying "The Democrats were the party of the Klan!", it would be more accurate to say "The party of the uneducated and evangelical were the part of the clan."

In that context, they still are, and nothing has changed.

Bartender Cabbie said...

Are we speaking of the Klan of old? Have you seen footage from the 20's and 30's? The Klan was a powerful force on the political scene. But perhaps I left that out? If we are talking about the "new Klan" we are discussing fools and ignorant rednecks. Usually they are not affiliated with either major American Party. Some may have some alliances with the Nationalist Party Of America or simlar types. The "new Klan" is as marginalized in our society as the "New" Black Panthers. Looked upon as buffoons and laughable idiots by most.

The old Klan, the real Klan, was a populist movement that was tightly interwoven with the Democratic Party.

It is funny to watch people of both ultra left and ultra right bent try to escape and/or explain away their forerunners.

A hardcore "progressive" and a hardcore Bircher type are very similar in more ways than they would like to admit. Thankfully most of us see them for what they are.

Mike.K.

[Part 1]

I may not be the most eloquent to respond, but I will at least try to not embarrass myself...

In response to Bartender Cabbie, quotes are his:

~“Are we speaking of the Klan of old? Have you seen footage from the 20's and 30's? The Klan was a powerful force on the political scene. But perhaps I left that out?”

The Klan of old was a major political force. No one will question that they shaped policy. The history of George Wallace, I believe, is more common than many would admit. And as for footage, “Birth of a Nation” is on my Netflix queue. I’ve seen lynching postcards sold at flea markets here in central Florida. I’m close enough to Rosewood to make it a day trip.

~“If we are talking about the "new Klan" we are discussing fools and ignorant rednecks.”

I disagree. While their base is uneducated rubes, and Aryan Nation attracts more skinheads, someone runs the show. The fact that the Klan is still one of the largest hate groups in the US indicates they have significant coordination and backing. I think we are also seeing more segmentation now, more “specialized” hate groups, if you will. Homophobic and misogynist types are more likely to be part of evangelical Christian groups, while nativists and anti-Latinos will join border patrol groups.

I know I have to be careful because it looks like I’m trying to change the terms of the debate, but if we look at what the Klan represents, we have to look to many other groups that are better funded and more mainstream.

Also, let’s not forget the Klan’s announcement that they were trying to look more “upscale” before the 2008 election.

~“The "new Klan" is as marginalized in our society as the "New" Black Panthers. Looked upon as buffoons and laughable idiots by most.”

The problem is, the “new” Klan is still very real. They have a website and mailing list. Let’s also not pretend that we can separate them from Stormfront, which is a very large and prolific site.

The new black panthers has three documented members, at least by the last footage I saw.

Furthermore, while the Black Panthers became radicalized, they were founded on “Second Ammendment remedies”, as the current Tea Partiers say. {Ohhh... first I comment saying “sy-fy”, now I’m saying “Tea Party” like they’re a political movement.... Mr. Glass is never going to let me comment again!!! :-) } Part of their founding was that they would arm themselves and study hand-to-hand combat because the police *would not* defend them. There is actually a direct link between this and the Stonewall Riot in the gay community.

~“The old Klan, the real Klan, was a populist movement that was tightly interwoven with the Democratic Party.”

I would actually say it was a populist movement that was tightly woven with the landed wealthy manipulating the commoners, authoritarian law enforcement, and the Christian pulpit, all of which was embraced as good policy by the populist agrarian base of the Democrat party.

Yes, it is part of the Democrat’s past, but since I’m 40 years old, I really have to look more at their last 50 years.

[Part 2]

~“It is funny to watch people of both ultra left and ultra right bent try to escape and/or explain away their forerunners.”

Um.... Up until the 60’s, it was both common knowledge and in many cases “established science” that black and brown people were of inferior intelligence. (See sidebar below.) It was commonly accepted that Jews were scheming and could not be trusted, especially any time money was involved. Jews also were believe to hoard gold and manipulate banks. Everyone knew gay men were mentally ill to the point of self destruction, to end their miserable life of theater, dinner parties, and lots and lots and lots of sex. (Actually, the image of the promiscuous 70’s gay man was largely influenced by the image of the 70’s straight male swinger.) If you go back another decade, it wasn’t until the 50’s that it was considered scientifically established (by watching the faces of various female primates having sex) that (a) the female orgasm during sex is *supposed* to happen, and (b) a woman wanting to have an orgasm during sex is normal.

Sidebar: one of my interests is linguistics. (Saluton. Mi parolas Esperante. Yes, I’m a geek.) Long before the term “Indo-European” was coined and “Indo-European” was a language family, scholars were noticing similarities in languages. While some of the similarity between Latin and Greek is that Athenian Greek became the scholarly language of the Roman Empire, and in many places Koine Greek was more used as a trade creole than imperial Latin, there are fundamental similarities that go beyond that. Scholars were trying to piece together an earlier language. When scholars studying Sanskrit found similarities to Latin and Greek, it was revolutionary in the field. It was also earth-shaking to the entrenched white supremacy. The thought that the gibbering of those brown savages over there was related to the great languages of antiquity for white Europeans took a while to settle in.

I’m not trying to run away from any of this. It’s history. Because it’s history, it’s why we still have books like “The Bell Curve” being viewed as “science”. It is also why we have Creationists saying that they refuse to study science because it offends their faith, and the don’t understand evolution therefore it must be wrong.

[Part 3]

~“A hardcore "progressive" and a hardcore Bircher type are very similar in more ways than they would like to admit. Thankfully most of us see them for what they are.”

I cannot completely disagree here, but I will say this.

I’m a progressive because I want to protect the environment. I got my college degree in Geology. We were learning about the science of climate change in both paleontology and sedimentary petrology classes in the early 90’s. It was also not presented as radical environmentalists “we’re all gonna die! Booga Booga!”. It was, “Let’s now apply the physics and chemistry we have been studying for the entire semester to what we are seeing with pollution today, and draw trend lines.” We did not start with the conclusion of global climate change and back-fill it with science. We started with the science we had been studying for months and then applied it, ending at that conclusion. My opinion that the science is sound is not based on reading an Al Gore book. My opinion is based on the data being analyzed nearly 20 years ago (long before it was politicized) in classes for my BA in Geology.

I’m a progressive because I want universal health care. I’ve had constant battles with my health insurance companies, and I work in health care. (I am *not* medical, to make that clear.) The first five years with Blue Cross I had to have a primary care physician (pcp). In those five years, my pcp was changed 11 times between 9 doctors. One of the doctors I was assigned twice I never saw because she was 30 minutes away, and I would have had to wait two weeks to be seen for my sinus infection. One of the doctors was so far away that Map Quest predicted a 54 minute drive. (I live near the USF Tampa campus, which includes the USF college of medicine. You cannot drive a mile here without crossing a medical specialists of some sort. I live within eight miles of one general and two specialty hospitals, and I pass two dentists and one GP on my short trip to work.) Now, I pay extra to not need a pcp, and the local “doc-in-a-box” walk in clinic is my primary care physician. As an aside, the other doctor I was assigned twice told me than someone “like you” (meaning a gay man, that was explicitly clear) should not be seen at a site that offers pediatric care, and he said he had an HIV test against some of my blood work without informing me. (When I had an HIV test, he said “They’re both negative,” and handed me two results.) Further, when a CT scan found a nodule of scar tissue on my lungs, the normal procedure was periodic CT scans to determine it was inert. Two different pulmonologists (who were also thoracic oncologists at another hospital) said I should at least be scanned at the one year margin, even though everyone agreed (including radiologists) it looked like an inert bit of scar tissue. That last CT scan, recommended by two oncologists, was fought by Blue Cross.

Birchers have revived the fight against water fouridation. I know there is some controversy, but only the Birchers seem to think it’s a plot to weaken people’s minds. The Birchers also tried to preserve the tradition of McCarthy style communist witch hunts.

Let’s also remember that the Democrats drove out the Dixiecrats and the Republicans drove out the Birchers, but the Birchers co-hosted CPAC in 2010.

Bartender Cabbie said...

You covered a lot of ground here and I will, due to time constraints, only address a couple points at this sitting.

You are correct I am sure that the "new" Klan has some backing that is largely unseen. The rank and file, I would imagine, are ignorant fools with little else to do. It is likely that they know little more about the motives of the "leadership" and unseen backers than a lowly SA man of 1930's Germany. Perhaps less. Useful idiots is probably a good description.

I have always had passing interest in the study of anti social "special interest" hate groups ie Stormfront, Volksfront, NOI, NBBP, LULAC, Klan, outlaw bikers, etc. etc. The love of money rather than their "cause" is probably the motivation of those in leadership position.

Take for instance the music business. There are those, such as Micetrap LLC of NJ who are in the business of backing and selling "hatecore" music ie "White Power" music. One only has to listen to a few of the bands such as Stormtroop 16 and Whitelaw to understand perfectly where they are coming from. It is unlikely they (band members) will see any riches behind their drivel, but those who promote...?Would they be in the "hate" business if it were not profitable? Some perhaps. Most not. The same can be said of so called "gangsta rap." The "artists" are usually somewhat more commercially viable frankly because it is not seen as "wrong" to be racist among some. However,in reality, NWA and Landser are (were) two sides of the same coin. I digress. Sorry.

At any rate, as with any organized group, it is probably difficult to follow the money trail. A bit of a ramble here, but I must say that I do agree with your assessment of the leadership of the Klan (and others). Ignorance at the bottom paired with shrewd, organized and businesslike racism at the top and among those perhaps unseen. However I must say that the "new" Klan (and similar groups) are not the political force of the past. Not that they can't be dangerous of course, but for the most part they are just people to shun and laugh about.

You have a lot of interesting points Mike K and I would like to continue this conversation and refuting (or agreeing with) them takes some thought and research.

I would like to add that you consider yourself a "progressive." I would submit that this is not one in the same as a "classic liberal." In my opinion one can't be both. No matter. I would like to get into this at another time and will do so if Driftglass will allow comment on the matter.