Quote:The source of this supposed quote journalist/author Ronald Kessler (who currently writes for the Rightwing site, NewsMax), via his book Inside the White House.
When I blogged about this on 1/22/2014 (SWTD #228) I referred to the quote as "highly dubious". This was my conclusion based (in part) on LBJ's White House Press Secretary Bill Moyers reflections on LBJ's thoughts following his signing of the legislation.
Bill Moyers: When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come", he said. (as quoted on page 167 of the 2004 book, Moyers on America).
I said "highly dubious" because these two secondhand quotes obviously don't square with one another. If Civil Rights only amounted to "a little something" but was "not enough to make a difference" then why would LBJ (according to Moyers) worry about delivering the South to the Republicans? And if it was "not enough to make a difference", then what of the claim that LBJ signed the legislation "because he thought it was politically expedient"? [1].
Are we to believe that LBJ signed the legislation because it would cause (or trick) African Americans into voting Democratic (and therefore signing the legislation was "politically expedient") but that he would also worry about "deliver[ing] the South to the Republican party for a long time to come"?
Either LBJ cravenly signed the legislation because he believed it would be advantageous for him to do so (because Blacks would be tricked into "voting Democratic for the next two hundred years") or he signed it for the right reasons KNOWING doing so would "[deliver] the South to the Republican party for a long time to come". Believing both quotes (the one provided by Kessler and the other via Moyers) accurately represent LBJ's reasoning and worries is illogical.
Was It Kessler or Moyers Who Lied?
So LBJ used the N-word a lot and was obviously fairly racist. He was also "a man of his time, and bore those flaws as surely as he sought to lead the country past them"... The point is he championed the bill and he signed it - angering the racist Southern Democrats and losing the Southern vote for the Democrats. So much for "political expediency".
This is why I don't believe the quote from Ronald Kessler's book. Although I do not believe this necessarily means Ronald Kessler lied. Despite working for the far-Right NewsMax and authoring a book titled In The President's Secret Service. A book that some describe as "the juiciest gossip he could get... mixed... with a rambling list of [Secret Service Agent] complaints".
I think he might have lied given that resume. More likely? The quote might be genuine, but the sentiment was not. As the following rated "best" comment from Reddit's "Ask Historians", which "aims to provide serious, academic-level answers to questions about history", explains.
...the quote is attributed to LBJ in Ronald Kessler's book, and was supposedly said to two southern governors. But in the absence of a reliable objective record of that quotation, among the best sources to answer your question are the presidential recordings made during the Johnson administration, which I've listened to at length during my undergrad studies. Several hundred conversations were recorded dealing with issues of racial politics and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Now, a quote like [the one from Kessler's book] is not found in any of these recordings... But they do provide excellent insight into how LBJ talked about these issues in private. For example, it is simply undisputed that LBJ did use the prevailing southern racial slurs of the time... That being said, for a rural-born white Texan in the late 1960s, the collected recordings show that LBJ had some astonishingly progressive views on race in America, but his nomenclature leaves something to be desired.
It is also worth noting that LBJ knew his audience, and would speak differently to a Georgia state legislator than, say, a Connecticut governor. It's very difficult to tell when LBJ is putting on an act for audience or when he's speaking with his "true" voice. Additionally, I tend to detect a bit of self-aware irony in some of LBJ's discussion of these issues. I think that's key to understanding how LBJ could say the most radically progressive statements while simultaneously using a racial slur.
...it seems unlikely that we will ever know if those exact words were uttered... [but] ...It's the kind of thing LBJ might say to a Dixiecrat to convince them not to oppose the CRA. Thus, if anyone got "tricked" over the CRA, it wasn't black America - it was Southern conservative democrats. In other words... while the quote might be genuine, the sentiment was not.
...I am convinced that LBJ is putting on an act to these two southern governors to quiet their rancor over his pursuit of the CRA... that this single quote, robbed of its context, would be used by some to imply that LBJ was a heartless racist manipulator [is a] notion that I think the historical record soundly disproves. (Excerpt from Reddit by x--BANKS--x).
Sure, this reply might be easy to dismiss as "opinion", but I think the argument is solid and I agree with it. Solid because, as the Reddit author points out, the sentiment contained in the quote (from Kessler's book) is inconsistent with past comments... those that were recorded for posterity. LBJ championed and signed the CRA to "to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country [and] to close the springs of racial poison"... as he stated when he spoke to the American people in a televised address after signing the legislation.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Amazing. In one article, you have a guy simultaneously saying LBJ didn't say the quote while acknowledging he said the quote but didn't mean it the way it sounded.
I have no vested interest either way, but c'mon man, just stick to one (the most believable) explanation. Throwing out multiple explanations (no matter how plausible) only makes it look like you're desperately reaching at straws.
(12-08-2015, 03:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Amazing. In one article, you have a guy simultaneously saying LBJ didn't say the quote while acknowledging he said the quote but didn't mean it the way it sounded.
I have no vested interest either way, but c'mon man, just stick to one (the most believable) explanation. Throwing out multiple explanations (no matter how plausible) only makes it look like you're desperately reaching at straws.
I think he said what I said a post before that one: I wouldn't be surprised if he said it. But there is nothing to prove it one way or the other concretely.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(12-08-2015, 03:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: From a book published in 1996....with no corroboration.
I mean, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true. But its still just another thing that can never be proven but is loved and warmly accepted by some for political purposes.
Probably true, but I figure there's enough racism against blacks stuff from the left/Democrats to avoid using a reliable, but not corroborated quote.
(12-08-2015, 03:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd we're talking about race.
That's because anti-gun control advocates motivation for opposing more lefty gun laws is racism. That's a common accusation from gun control supporters.... at least until I show them this:
"We're supposed to be organizing negroes to arm themselves with shotguns and rifles for self-defense. America is based on the right of people to organize for self-defense. This is in the Constitution of the United States..... The 2nd Amendment spells out the right for people in this particular governmental system to have arms to defend themselves."
(12-08-2015, 03:57 PM)6andcounting Wrote: That's because anti-gun control advocates motivation for opposing more lefty gun laws is racism. That's a common accusation from gun control supporters.... at least until I show them this:
"We're supposed to be organizing negroes to arm themselves with shotguns and rifles for self-defense. America is based on the right of people to organize for self-defense. This is in the Constitution of the United States..... The 2nd Amendment spells out the right for people in this particular governmental system to have arms to defend themselves."
one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented figures in US history. tragic loss.
(12-08-2015, 04:15 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented figures in US history. tragic loss.
I think I learned about MLK every year in grade school. Nothing too in-depth, just the basics. Malcolm X was mentioned once ever in one class and just to compare and contrast him with MLK.
The segregation and racism he supported for much of his career turned a lot of people away, including MLK who was ultimately more successful with his strategy.
That being said, MLK's plan was to be oppressed and attacked to become a martyr and build sympathy. X said carry a gun and when oppression comes looking for you shoot it in the face. I like that second plan better, purely from a safety and self-preservation perspective. MLK carried as well, he just didn't brag about it because it may have misconstrued his message of nonviolence and allowing yourself to be a martyr.
(12-08-2015, 04:26 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I think I learned about MLK every year in grade school. Nothing too in-depth, just the basics. Malcolm X was mentioned once ever in one class and just to compare and contrast him with MLK.
The segregation and racism he supported for much of his career turned a lot of people away, including MLK who was ultimately more successful with his strategy.
That being said, MLK's plan was to be oppressed and attacked to become a martyr and build sympathy. X said carry a gun and when oppression comes looking for you shoot it in the face. I like that second plan better, purely from a safety and self-preservation perspective. MLK carried as well, he just didn't brag about it because it may have misconstrued his message of nonviolence and allowing yourself to be a martyr.
What most people don't know is that X came full circle at the end of his life and no longer believed in isolationism. He had a transformational experience while visiting mecca and seeing white muslims participating in the Hajj. I would highly recommend Malcolm X's autobiography by Alex Haley. A fantastic read and highly informative. It should be required reading in HS.
(12-08-2015, 05:37 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: What most people don't know is that X came full circle at the end of his life and no longer believed in isolationism. He had a transformational experience while visiting mecca and seeing white muslims participating in the Hajj. I would highly recommend Malcolm X's autobiography by Alex Haley. A fantastic read and highly informative. It should be required reading in HS.
Yeah, it was his renouncing of his Black Panther affiliate that got him assassinated. I'd definitely be interested in checking that out.
(12-08-2015, 06:07 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Yeah, it was his renouncing of his Black Panther affiliate that got him assassinated. I'd definitely be interested in checking that out.
Renouncing of the Nation of Islam actually. He was assassinated soon after coming back from the Hajj and formerly adopting the name Malik El- Shabazz. That is when he switched from an isolation / segregation view to preaching racial unity and, more importantly, equality.
Alex Haley actually wrote the book, which makes it a much better read given his storytelling abilities. Its still considered an auto-biography because the two men sat down for 1 on 1 interviews for hours and hours across many years. The very end of the book is especially captivating as Malcolm is conveying the dangerous situation he's found himself and his family in and knows the Nation of Islam is after him. Alex actually finishes the very end of the book postmortem.
Fun fact. Red Fox is mentioned in the autobiography as a worker on a train Malcolm frequently took.
(12-08-2015, 12:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is zero need for the citizenry to own semi-automatic firearms in their homes. Zero. There is no argument that has ever been presented to me that has swayed my opinion on this. A revolver will do just fine for personal protection, a shotgun is the best home defense weapon, and if you need a semi for hunting you shouldn't be in the woods.
Is there any need for you to own a high performance car?
Should everyone be forced to drive the same type vehicle.
(12-08-2015, 06:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is there any need for you to own a high performance car?
Should everyone be forced to drive the same type vehicle.
Difference being that one is a tool designed for transportation and the other is a tool designed to kill. Also, there is a lot of variability stil remaining in firearms even removing semi-automatics. There is also the point Nate brings up.
(12-08-2015, 06:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ida know, maybe there would be less traffic fatalities if cars weren't able to drive twice the legal speed limit. I'm just sayin'.
Which is valid since speed is a factor in many, if not most, traffic fatalities. Speed increases the risk of a collision.
(12-08-2015, 06:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Difference being that one is a tool designed for transportation and the other is a tool designed to kill. Also, there is a lot of variability stil remaining in firearms even removing semi-automatics. There is also the point Nate brings up.
Which is valid since speed is a factor in many, if not most, traffic fatalities. Speed increases the risk of a collision.
Yes, but why is a high performance vehicle OK, but a high performance weapon is not. I mean a Chevy Cavalier can tranport you. I'm sure excess speed is a factor in many vehicle fatalities that kill not only the driver but other innocents, as well.
It's just that some people want the best of the best; who are we to tell them they cannot have it if they follow the laws.
(12-08-2015, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, but why is a high performance vehicle OK, but a high performance weapon is not. I mean a Chevy Cavalier can tranport you. I'm sure excess speed is a factor in many vehicle fatalities that kill not only the driver but other innocents, as well.
It's just that some people want the best of the best; who are we to tell them they cannot have it if they follow the laws.
Right. But we do tell them they cannot have an F35. Completely different uses. If someone wants to upgrade their Remington 870 to a Wilson Combat, hell yes. All for it.
Just don't understand why anyone would need to own an AK47 unless they wanted to kill a LOT of people at the same time.
(12-08-2015, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, but why is a high performance vehicle OK, but a high performance weapon is not. I mean a Chevy Cavalier can tranport you. I'm sure excess speed is a factor in many vehicle fatalities that kill not only the driver but other innocents, as well.
It's just that some people want the best of the best; who are we to tell them they cannot have it if they follow the laws.
People WANT cars that can drive 160 MPH and they WANT guns that can shoot how many bullets per second with X amount of velocity and so on and so forth and car and gun manufacturers and lawmakers make $$$ when they give people what they want. I worked with a guy who bought a magnum for home protection. I pointed out that firing a gun with that much power in the dark in a house with his wife and kids might cause more trouble than it prevents, but the dude wants the ability to turn someone into gory paste so that's what he's going to get.
I'm an admitted cynic, but I have to say when it comes to people WANTING risk the issue seems to be those who are unrealistic about the consequences or don't think of them.
(12-08-2015, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, but why is a high performance vehicle OK, but a high performance weapon is not. I mean a Chevy Cavalier can tranport you. I'm sure excess speed is a factor in many vehicle fatalities that kill not only the driver but other innocents, as well.
It's just that some people want the best of the best; who are we to tell them they cannot have it if they follow the laws.
Of course people want the best of the best. Of course, what the best is becomes a subjective discussion. IMHO, my Ruger No. 1 in .270 is a superior firearm to any AR-15 on the market.
I still don't get the comparison between a car and firearm. I know many people use it on both sides for different ways to make an argument, but when one is used as intended it gets you from point A to point B safely. When the other is used as intended, something/someone dies.
(12-08-2015, 07:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I still don't get the comparison between a car and firearm. I know many people use it on both sides for different ways to make an argument, but when one is used as intended it gets you from point A to point B safely. When the other is used as intended, something/someone dies.
If a high-performance car is used as "intended" someone breaks the law and adds to the likelihood of someone dying.
But enough. You stated no one has shown you a valid argument why it is OK to own an assault rifle; I doubt today is any different.
(12-08-2015, 06:59 PM)Vas Wrote: Just don't understand why anyone would need to own an AK47 unless they wanted to kill a LOT of people at the same time.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](http://media1.giphy.com/media/9EmYYw6o9cmsM/giphy.gif)
![[Image: Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
