It's Kamala!

[Dill]

(08-25-2020, 01:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Dill Wrote:  Leftists-without-quotation-marks have, since the 19th century, excluded race as a criterion of political exclusion. 

So Jim Crow laws WEREN'T enacted by Democrats?

Also, didn't Biden specifically state he was going to exclude the white race from his pool of VP candidates? Yes, he did. So, this is complete bullshit, isn't it? Yes, it is.

It is the left and Democrats that care what one's race or gender or sexual orientation is.

Now for these points.

1. Bels and Bpat stole my thunder here. 19th century Dems were not "leftist."  In post #210 above, I offer a brief history of how the terms "left" and "right" appeared in European political discourse, the principles which distinguished between these ends of the political spectrum. A little after that I wrote this regarding the Dem party pre- and post Civil War:

If there was a "right" in the U.S. then the pro-slavery movement would exemplify it, not the free-soilers and Whigs who would form the Republican party. If anything, between 1854-70, Democrats and Republicans were the inverse of today, with Dems fighting "big government," supporting slavery and receptive to the nativist "Know Nothings" when the latter's party failed, and Republicans, to the left in that political spectrum, opposing slavery and (by 19th century standards) embracing government.

I should add that at least two members of my extended family were segregationist Dems, but shifted to the Republican party when Reagan ran for president. Imagine them reminding me (were they still alive) that Dems are the "party of racism;Repubs the party of Lincoln."

So one cannot use the term "leftists" as synonymous with Democrats. That's just Tucker/Hannity talk.

2. Giving blacks and women the vote, and trying to insure that they are not discriminated against for being black or female or gay or whatever would be one form of "caring what one's race or gender or sexual orientation is."

In post #175 above, addressed to Hollo, I discuss how historically, when they recognized segregation was permanently rolled back, some former segregationists realized they could reduce Black admissions to graduate schools by ruling out race as a criterion. They could maintain a status quo set by racist policies, simply by now insisting that "merit" be the sole criterion of selection. They knew that previous segregation had excluded many black applicants from any opportunity to gain the requisite merit (i.e., skills and background). "Leftists" opposed this by introducing affirmative action.

So the "racists" were for excluding racial selection criteria as a means of maintaining white dominance and the anti-racists were for including it to advance equality of opportunity. 

I.e., excluding race from policy considerations doesn't always mean one "doesn't care" about race; and including race doesn't mean one is "perpetuating racism."  This is why contextual analysis of any supposed racist policy or action is necessary, to understand motives and effects.