The new Jim Crow

"a practice or policy of segregating or discriminating against black people, as in public places, public vehicles, or employment." - Definition of Jim Crow.

As described in a previous installment, it's a common practice among American leftists (particularly black leftists) to claim that the Republican and Democratic parties have "traded places," as an explanation for their support of the historically ostentatiously racist Democrat party. As illustrated in that installment, it was the Democrat party mass importing non-white people to perform their menial labor nearly 200 years ago, and it's the Democrat party doing the very same thing today. But as always with leftists, when their delusional mythos is challenged with fact, they respond by making some ridiculously simplistic and/or erroneous claim to affirm their delusion. According to Democrats the reason their party is still mass importing an underclass of brown people to perform their menial labor, is because they "traded places" with the Republicans and became the party of civil rights, as opposed to simply trading one group of serfs for another (the actual explanation). It's nothing more than an absurdly specious justification for a position rooted in abject ignorance. (A virtually ubiquitous practice among leftists.) 

You'll never find a staunch Democrat (especially a black Democrat) with even a moderate understanding of history, because if they had such, they wouldn't be Democrats. In much the same manner no one with even a modicum of historical knowledge would be a "Marxist." Because no one who actually grasps the fact 100 million people died in a single century, as a result of the implementation of Marxist values, would want to be a Marxist. (Socialism's death toll in the twentieth century rivals The Black Death, speculated to have wiped out half the population of Europe, and yet it's a common thing to see American "Democrats" touting the virtues of Socialism, advocating its adoption in the U.S., and supporting flagrantly Socialist candidates for office.) Garnering support for these ideologies and the parties that support them, requires suppressing knowledge of history (typically through omission or revision), not increasing it. And thus you will consistently bear witness to leftists deceiving themselves and others, by fabricating and espousing utterly fallacious (and even psychotic) explanations for their positions, as a means of justifying those positions. Mass importing brown people to do the labor they deem beneath them was racism 200 years ago, but it isn't racism today, because the brown people being brought here today are coming here for a "better life." Basically, the same thing an antebellum slave trader/owner could, and would, have argued regarding slaves.

"Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually. [....] Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe–look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse." - Democrat John C. Calhoun, Vice President of the United States and U.S. Senator from South Carolina, February 06, 1837.

John Quincy Adams acknowledges the origin and fondness of this sophistic reasoning, among those for whom the exploitation of their fellow man was a lifestyle, as well. 

"It has, indeed, presented itself in its most malignant form in that portion of the Union, the civil institutions of which are most infected with the gangrene of slavery. [....] (Where philosophers teach) that slavery is no curse, but a blessing! [...] ; that slavery is the guardian and promoter of wisdom and virtue; that the slave, by laboring for another's enjoyment, learns disinterestedness, and humility, and to melt with tenderness and affection for his master; that the master, nurtured, clothed, and sheltered by another's toils, learns to be generous and grateful to the slave, and sometimes to feel for him as a father for his child; that, released from the necessity of supplying his own wants, he acquires opportunity of leisure to improve his mind, to purify his heart, to cultivate his taste; that he has time on his hands to plunge into the depths of philosophy, and to soar to the clear empyrean of seraphic morality." - John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before The Inhabitants of The Town of Newburyport, July 4, 1837. (Parentheses mine.)

So, as I've stated for years, you see the exact same arguments antebellum Democrats were using to justify their racist policies two centuries ago being used by present day Democrats (merely slightly modified for modern circumstances). If you asked a Democrat in 1829 how slavery affected brown people, they would have told you not only was it not bad for them, but it was actually good for them. If you ask a Democrat in 2019 how illegal immigration affects brown people, they will tell you not only is it not bad for them, but it's actually good for them. In both instances the end result for the brown person doing the menial labor is a "better life." Thus, in this instance neither the position nor the rhetoric of the party has changed in substance, yet Democrats claim the parties have "traded places." And they claim that because they're ignorant or dishonest. Ignorance is now the primary cause as leftists, having subverted the education system, have essentially purged history curricula of such information. And those that do know certainly aren't going to volunteer that information.

And this brings me to the point of this installment, which is to illustrate yet another flagrant commonality between "old" Democrats and "new" Democrats. Hatred of Republicans. Ever fewer people are aware of the fact it was the Democrat party that supported slavery, founded the terrorist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan for the purpose of overthrowing Republican government in the southern states, and maintained the racist laws known colloquially as "Jim Crow" (which essentially negated the Fourteenth Amendment) long after the Civil War. Even fewer are aware of the fact Democrat antipathy and malevolence wasn't directed exclusively at black people. They hated Republicans in general. For example, in 1866 Democrats (many of which were ex Confederate soldiers) in New Orleans, LA, attacked Republicans who called for a Constitutional Convention killing 60 people, 20 of which were white. Hatred toward and violence perpetrated against not only black Republicans, but whites who were members of the Republican party and/or supported black civil rights, would continue into the twentieth century under Jim Crow. In 1964, 98 years after the murder of Republicans in New Orleans previously mentioned, members of the KKK murdered three activists, two of which were white, seeking to register blacks to vote (for Republicans) in Mississippi. (Racist Democrat control of voter registration was so complete that in 1940, 75 years after the Civil War, less than 1% of the voting-age black population in Mississippi was registered).

Remains of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Mickey Schwerner.

Leftists will observe that the Democrats now support black people voting, and cite such as evidence the parties "traded places." But nothing could be farther from the truth. Democrats support blacks voting today because nearly 100% of black voters now support the Democrat party. This was not the case decades ago. Because of the Democrat's party's ostentatious hatred of blacks, and refusal to accept or support black candidates, virtually all black voters supported the Republican party for generations. Southern Democrats didn't elect a black congressman until 1973, e.g., Andrew Young, who was "the first African American to represent Georgia in Congress since Reconstruction." 1973 wasn't 200 years ago during some long past epoch of American life, it was only 46 years ago, and well after many Americans now living were born.

Something many people today simply don't understand, is that southern Democrats were incensed at Republicans for using their former property against them through the "negro vote," and remained bitter about it long after the Civil War. In the eyes of Democrats, using their property against them in this manner was seen as dishonorable, and for the purposes of political expediency. Thus wresting that vote from the Republican party, and using it against them in the same manner, was a form of exquisite revenge against the Republican party in the eyes of Democrats. So over time through deceptive rhetoric and "assistance" programs, the Democrat party gradually rendered much of the black populace dependent upon, and therefore loyal to Democrats once again. When blacks overwhelmingly supported the Republican party Democrats fervently opposed black voting. But now that they benefit almost exclusively from the black vote, and get to use it against Republicans in the same way it was used against them, they're naturally huge supporters of it. So it needs to be understood that the Democratic Party's newfound support of black rights has little, if anything to do with a love of freedom, and a great deal to do with personal benefit and vendetta. Likewise, as I've long said, if most illegal immigrants began voting Republican you'd see the Democrat Party's position on that issue change essentially overnight. Just as in the past with black voters, you'd see aggressive Democrat opposition to illegal immigrants voting, if those votes didn't overwhelmingly benefit and augment the power of their own party.

As illustrated by the restaurant owner depicted at the beginning of this contribution, the goal of Democrats has been consistent whether it be 1866, 1964, or 2019; to send a message. Republicans are not welcome and will not be tolerated by Democrat loyalists, either personally or in their places of business, just as they weren't 55 years ago or 153 years ago. You will either defer to Democrat discrimination, segregation, harassment, and intimidation, or you will become the target of Democrat led terrorism campaigns which seek to ruin you or worse.

And if discrimination, segregation, harassment, and intimidation don't work, just as in 1856 when Democrat Preston Brooks severely beat Republican Charles Sumner on the Senate floor with his cane for criticizing slavery and slavery supporters (causing Sumner brain damage), violence isn't off the table for dedicated Democrats if it means keeping Republicans out of power.

Same ole party. Same ole hatred and bigotry you know and love. And it's still ostentatiously directed at black and white Republicans. Likewise the black person that knows his place, falls in line, and submits to Democrat rule is taken care of, i.e., provided food, housing, health care, etc., just as one was "under the kind superintending care of his (Democrat) master" nearly 200 years ago. 

So what's changed? The knowledge and understanding of the average American. It was common knowledge which party was the party of hatred and oppression 100 years ago, but decades of historical dereliction and revisionism under primarily Democrat controlled educational institutions, has drastically obscured that fact to the point most Americans today can't recognize even the most flagrant illustrations it remains such. Democrats were seething with hated for Republicans a century ago and they're seething with hatred for them today. They aggressively and furtively sought to undermine Republican governance a century ago and they aggressively and furtively seek to undermine such today. They wanted a society in which a permanent aristocracy ruled a permanent lower class of non-white laborers a century ago and they want the same thing today. They systematically robbed human beings of their rights by denying their personhood, and used such as a basis for arbitrary power over life and death over a century ago, and they do the same thing today.

All that's really changed is the medium and methods Democrats use to market their world view to the populace at large.

Ultimately, Jim Crow was devised by Democrats to repress political dissidents and rivals. Democrats are still doing that today at every opportunity, only now it's at the federal level, in addition to the state and local level. So in closing, though some of the nuances may have changed, ultimately the "new" Jim Crow is really just the old Jim Crow. Deceptively concealed within, of all things, a rhetorical platform of "equality." When you look beyond the rhetoric to the substance however, e.g., the policies, the prejudice, hatred, segregation, and manner in which they sought to augment their own power in government while seeking to intimidate and disenfranchise Republican voters, etc., is all still there. You just need the requisite historical knowledge to recognize it.