U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-07-2015, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,726 posts, read 10,473,602 times
Reputation: 9755

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet View Post
Until Obama, we were making progress. Now? We have been setback at least 50 years because if his continual division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet View Post

Things, WHILE NOT PERFECT, have never been better for blacks. However, thanks to this administration, they have been set back at least 3 decades and it will take years for the relations to recover.
So does Obama get credit for improving race relations by two decades over the span of a couple of weeks? At that rate, it won't take years to recover.


ps - the Politics forum is further down the home page.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2015, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,444 posts, read 25,239,521 times
Reputation: 7365
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
If we start erasing the names of racist university presidents from the late 19th, early 20th century ... well, I'd encourage you to buy stock in signage companies because there'll be a lot of re-naming going on.

Woodrow Wilson was a complicated man and is a quite misunderstood president today. Conservatives malign him as a hopeless liberal, the worst of the Progressive movement when he was arguably the conservative choice in the election of 1912 where he faced two opponents who both styled themselves progressives in one way or another - William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt - and one socialist opponent in Eugene V. Debs.

Liberals blame him for his racism, although William Howard Taft is on record calling Filipinos "our little brown brothers" and had the marines fight numerous imperial conflicts against darker people. Theodore Roosevelt, who called the Columbians "Dagoes" when they wouldn't sell the Panama Canal zone to the U.S. and said that the country was better off if 9 out of 10 Indians were dead. Teddy Roosevelt did not lift a finger when 150 black soldiers were dishonorably discharged for a shooting in Brownsville, TX that they did not commit despite Booker T. Washington's pleas for him to intervene.

To the extent Roosevelt and Taft opened some federal jobs to blacks - that was because the Republicans at that time were still "the party of Lincoln" and enjoyed the near-unanimous support of the blacks could vote - those in northern cities like New York and Chicago. So there was some minor patronage doled out. As a Democrat, Wilson had no such commitments to keep and was not disposed toward anything like that anyway.

On foreign policy conservatives like to blame him for suspensions of civil liberties during WWI, etc... and the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson's 1916 election opponent Charles Evans Hughes had essentially the same national defense policies so not much would have been different under him. Wilson's previous viable opponent, Theodore Roosevelt, would have rushed headlong into WWI, which the U.S. was not prepared to do, with possibly disastrous results but at the very least costing the U.S. many more senseless casualties.

Wilson actually tried to convince Britain and France at the Paris Peace Conference not to saddle Germany with so many reparations and the war guilt clause, but it was hopeless. Wilson's admonitions had about as much influence on French president Clemenceau and British PM Lloyd George as Jacque Chirac had on George W. Bush when the Iraq War was in consideration. The British and French were determined to get their pound of flesh out of Germany after 4 years of brutal warfare.

A lot of people blame President Wilson for all kinds of things, mostly based on unreasonable views of him taken out of context.

Was he racist against African-Americans? Of course he was, and somewhat more than was average for his time too. He was from the south and grew up in the thick of Lost Cause ideology, so he particularly disliked blacks.

However, he actually had a little more respect for Asians, Latin Americans and Middle Eastern people than Roosevelt or Taft did, for what it's worth. That's not a high bar, but still. Wilson called for self-determination of colonial peoples which is a heck of a lot more than Theodore Roosevelt ever did.
Taft was no progressive although he incorporated aspects of the progressive program into his platform, and sincerely agreed with a few progressive beliefs.

Re: 1916, Hughes' foreign policy beliefs were identical to Wilson's, but there were potential GOP presidential candidates who had different beliefs. Robert LaFollette, Albert Cummins, and Lawrence Sherman were less hawkish than Wilson, TR, or Hughes, and they could have gotten the nomination for the presidency.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2015, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Southeast, where else?
3,914 posts, read 4,491,194 times
Reputation: 5810
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763 View Post
So does Obama get credit for improving race relations by two decades over the span of a couple of weeks? At that rate, it won't take years to recover.


ps - the Politics forum is further down the home page.

Tell me, exactly, how he has improved race relations by two decades....boy, are YOU out of touch....I can't remember since being a kid where racism was so virulently discussed. EVERYTHING seems to be about race. And it's not like it's a new topic.


He has become known as; "The Great Divider".....you think he actually has united us??? LOL!!! You really believe that???


It's a miracle we aren't shooting each other in the streets at this point. Wasn't like this the previous 25 years before he came in office. Things were actually improving.....not now.....now, we simply fume at each other....that's how it was in 64.....and then, kaboom, the whole place erupted....we are headed that way....


This guy has done NOTHING to improve relations.....indicting every white when shooting a black (Darren Wilson) and noooooooooo apologies when he is wrong.....ignoring every white when shot by a black.....ignoring the mayhem of blacks on blacks and the constant murdering of each other in Chicago....not a word....not a reference....nothing...nada......


race relations are now back to 70's levels.....NOT good.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2015, 03:13 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: NYC
46,070 posts, read 45,164,232 times
Reputation: 14965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet View Post
Tell me, exactly, how he has improved race relations by two decades....boy, are YOU out of touch....I can't remember since being a kid where racism was so virulently discussed. EVERYTHING seems to be about race. And it's not like it's a new topic.
It's a new topic because the thread is Woodrow Wilson in a New Light not race relations under Obama. It's not hard to read the thread title before posting.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2015, 05:42 PM
 
172 posts, read 142,030 times
Reputation: 193
Default Woodrow Wilson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
He was far more racist than previous presidents. He re-segregated the federal workforce, it had been integrated for decades. It's more than just "his times".
Well said.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2015, 07:05 PM
 
10,778 posts, read 10,386,602 times
Reputation: 34545
Quote:
Originally Posted by willow1990 View Post
Well said.
He will still be three times the President that the three men who came after him were. These were presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.

That's what is missing in this whole discussion. The picture is not rounded out. Compared to other presidents in that era, Wilson was pretty good.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2015, 09:55 PM
 
100 posts, read 95,654 times
Reputation: 187
I realize this isn't about Wilson, but I wanted to get a correction in here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
I am reminded of the folks who named a new cafeteria in Colorado after Alfred Packer.
THEN, they found out that ol' Al had been convicted of murder...

and cannibalism!

they changed the name.
They haven't changed the name of the ALFERD Packer Grill -- and the entire "naming rights" was just another collegiate joke.

Alferd Packer Restaurant & Grill | University Memorial Center | University of Colorado Boulder

Those crazy students...
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2015, 08:13 PM
Status: "Autumn is here!" (set 15 days ago)
 
6,276 posts, read 9,051,814 times
Reputation: 4839
I recently read A Scott Berg's biography of Woodrow Wilson. The whole Princeton scandal erupted about a month or so after I read it. By the way, I highly recomment Scot Berg's biography.

When I bought the biography I was aware of his racism, but I bought it anyway for the following reasons:

1. Woodrow Wilson lived at a time when the question wasn't who held racist beliefs but rather who wasn't racist. In the context of his times, and also the fact that he was born and reared in the South, that Wilson was a racist should had been a given. A shock would had arisen had he not been. That in itself gives him a different dimension. I personally doubt that had Wilson been alive in our time that he would had been a racist. People are a product of their times. Had Wilson been alive today with his old belief, I would had joined the anti-Wilson crowd. But he's not a man of our times and we need to understand that and not hold it against him or anyone from the past.

2. He was president of the USA and one of the most important ones in the formulation of the US role in the global sphere. He was an important public figure.

3. He was a defining figure in the improvement of one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

I'm sure in the future new social parameters will exist and the people from those times can't pretend to objectively judge our time by the moral standards of the future. Imagine if in the future people of conspicuous mixed ancestry recognize themselves by considering themselves as such. Imagine if any mixed race person that identifies as anything other than mixed race is seen as a self-hating bigot.

Do you think the people from the future have the right to strip any place that will be named after Barack Obama simply because he identifies as black instead of mixed? Does the future generations have the right to retroactively (and unfairly too) apply their morality on what essentially is a different time period with a different reality?

The answer is no. To most people in the USA, Barack Obama identifying as black isn't seen as self-hate, self-denial, or anything of the sort. Maybe in the future that type of 'one-droppism' will be seen in a very negative light, but not today. As such, Obama must always be judged based on the moral compass of his time and not of those of the future.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2015, 08:22 PM
 
63,587 posts, read 89,043,172 times
Reputation: 13884
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
I recently read A Scott Berg's biography of Woodrow Wilson. The whole Princeton scandal erupted about a month or so after I read it. By the way, I highly recomment Scot Berg's biography.

When I bought the biography I was aware of his racism, but I bought it anyway for the following reasons:

1. Woodrow Wilson lived at a time when the question wasn't who held racist beliefs but rather who wasn't racist. In the context of his times, and also the fact that he was born and reared in the South, that Wilson was a racist should had been a given. A shock would had arisen had he not been. That in itself gives him a different dimension. I personally doubt that had Wilson been alive in our time that he would had been a racist. People are a product of their times.

2. He was president of the USA and one of the most important ones in the formulation of the US's role in the global sphere. He was an important public figure.

3. He was a defining figure in the improvement of one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

I'm sure in the future new social parameters will exist and the people from those times can't pretend to objectively judge our time by the moral standards of the future. Imagine if in the future people of conspicuous mixed ancestry recognize themselves by considering themselves as such. Imagine if any mixed race person that identifies as anything other than mixed race is seen as a self-hating bigot.

Do you think the people from the future have the right to strip any place that will be named after Barack Obama simply because he identifies as black instead of mixed? Does the future generations have the right to retroactively (and unfairly too) apply their morality on what essentially is a different time period with a different reality?

The answer is no. To most people in the USA, Barack Obama identifying as black isn't seen as self-hate, self-denial, or anything of the sort. Maybe in the future that type of 'one-droppism' will be seen in a very negative light, but not today. As such, Obama must always be judged based on the moral compass of his time and not of those of the future.
Umm, Obama is more than "one drop" of Black African descent. That is why stating "one drop" for such instances is a big misnomer.

As for Woodrow Wilson, I agree, as such attitudes being expressed openly during that time wouldn't have been a surprise.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2015, 07:53 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,722 posts, read 4,859,124 times
Reputation: 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
but a bigger one, IMO, was his maneuvering the US into WW I.
Are you against national self-determination, Linda?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top