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.
At least back in the early 20th century that is what it was about. I am in favor of people gaining skills and starting their own businesses, which is what Booker T. Washington was about. However, I could not have dealt with segregation. Booker T. Washington also believe that Blacks should forget about civil rights and political power, and just accept segregation going on in the South. His view was that by acquiring wealth and skills, Blacks would eventually garner the respect of Whites. His philosophy was basically "don't rock the boat". History would prove that Washington's way didn't always work. Tulsa riot of 1921 is one such example.
This is how I see it. When Black conservatism got started, it was something that wasn't really meant to work. It came out of trying to be accommodating and not "rocking the boat". Conservatism means "to conserve". What exactly was any kind of conservatism in the early 20th century trying to preserve, or keep? And how would any of that been of any benefit to Black people during those times?
Booker T Washington kind of hedged his bet. He was secretly financing lawyers who fought against segregation. He knew that progress would take both approaches.
Booker T Washington kind of hedged his bet. He was secretly financing lawyers who fought against segregation. He knew that progress would take both approaches.
Perhaps deep down he did support some civil rights efforts. Just the same, when it comes to Black conservatism, one had to wonder what Blacks were trying to preserve in 1900. Blacks were 35 years removed from slavery. Most (9 out of 10) were living under Jim Crow laws. I conservative means values of God and family, I can dig that. It's part of me as well. However, in terms of 1900 America, there is not much Blacks had to conserve. Conservatism in general during the early 20th century was meant to exclude Blacks.
My response is meant to be a confirmation and an add-on. I'm confirming that Booker T. Washington's way was "don't rock the boat". He was trying the "model minority " approach before there was ever a name for it. I'm adding this to it. Black conservatism in 1900 seems oxymoronic given the political/racial climate of the early 20th century. Conservatives of those days were trying to preserve a racial hierarchy that would ensure Blacks being on the fringes of society, or being excluded entirely.
Perhaps deep down he did support some civil rights efforts. Just the same, when it comes to Black conservatism, one had to wonder what Blacks were trying to preserve in 1900. Blacks were 35 years removed from slavery. Most (9 out of 10) were living under Jim Crow laws. I conservative means values of God and family, I can dig that. It's part of me as well. However, in terms of 1900 America, there is not much Blacks had to conserve. Conservatism in general during the early 20th century was meant to exclude Blacks.
My response is meant to be a confirmation and an add-on. I'm confirming that Booker T. Washington's way was "don't rock the boat". He was trying the "model minority " approach before there was ever a name for it. I'm adding this to it. Black conservatism in 1900 seems oxymoronic given the political/racial climate of the early 20th century. Conservatives of those days were trying to preserve a racial hierarchy that would ensure Blacks being on the fringes of society, or being excluded entirely.
Unbelievable. Woodrow Wilson, leader of the Progressive Movement and President from 1913-1921, a Democrat, introduced segregation to the Federal government.
Republicans have lost their way a bit in recent years, and certainly how things are reported in the news has political tinge, but the oppressors were the progressive Democrats of the day...the last thing the union bosses wanted was cheap labor competition from migrating African Americans or immigrants.
I guess I shouldn't be surprise that Democrats are more adept at being adaptable, but man, people....pick up some history books.
Unbelievable. Woodrow Wilson, leader of the Progressive Movement and President from 1913-1921, a Democrat, introduced segregation to the Federal government.
Republicans have lost their way a bit in recent years, and certainly how things are reported in the news has political tinge, but the oppressors were the progressive Democrats of the day...the last thing the union bosses wanted was cheap labor competition from migrating African Americans or immigrants.
I guess I shouldn't be surprise that Democrats are more adept at being adaptable, but man, people....pick up some history books.
Notice I was talking about 1900. Wilson wasn't even President yet. And by 1900, both parties were turning their backs on Blacks(Look up the Lily White Movement). I was talking about CONSERVATISM, not political parties. Conservatism did not serve Blacks at all in 1900. I was talking about conservative, not political parties.
Read all the stereotypes used to tell Black folk how not to get stopped by police.
Notice how most involve rims, tint, etc. They don’t even realize walking down the street and being stopped by cops is COMMON as well.
I was stopped by a bike cop and accused of vandalism on a building and told I was on video. They would not let me see the video. My uncle is a high profile lawyer in DC. When he called the police station the cop found me and asked why I called a lawyer with an embarrassing look on his face.
I was once stopped while walking home and accused of stealing a car miles away. I was in foot... where the hell was the car?
I’ve been pulled over for “speeding” twice when cops were driving the opposite direction and did a uturn and said they clocked me. Both were thrown out of court and both of them had mistakes on the ticket because the reality was they thought I would just eat the ticket and not fight it. Pretty sure these tickets are intentionally made with mistakes because the actual charge was bogus.
Henrico VA. Pulled over a car, I wasnt the driver. Searched everyone in the car and told us while we didkt break any laws they could search us and do whatever they wanted. Nothing was found.
Last one was the best, WV we stop at a gas station to fill up. A person in the store who was a friend of the clerk claims the woman with us (Black woman) stole cigarettes even tho she doesn’t smoke. They left the store and a cop tells us to pay the fine or go downtown. Now, we were on our way to a gig so we paid the fine because it was a weekend and we would’ve had to stay in a WV jail cell until monday. What makes this story hilarious is some of the people with us were white. They were floored at the treatment we received. We shrugged and told them “welcome to
our world” They were traumatized.. we were looking at them like “this is what happens when you hang with us”
Reading about what happened in West Virginia, I'm sorry that happened. I've been accused of stealing, I've been followed around a store. Two separate occasions, I went into a convenience store and got accused of stealing. On both occasions, said clerk made me pull my pockets out. I was angry and decided "I'm not buying anything from here ever again".
It's hard for me to laugh for this reason. That situation could have ended up in a scarier position. Being a Black male, I have to worry about someone perceiving me as a threat, and then acting on feeling of fear. That situation could have ended up with scarier results. Having to prove your innocence is just sad. It angers me.
Writing bogus tickets and trying trumped up stuff, I can't think of any reason someone would do that other than to be vindictive.
Again, one perspective isn't about 'trying the other side', it's about utilizing long term strategy to gain increased political power. One might argue that it's the lack of long term political savvy that has created the current rut that the black community finds itself in. Bottom line is that no politician, regardless of 'side', will do squat for the black community unless they can be compelled to do so, and that's what 'voting the other side' can help with.
Well, this is the thing. If the other side isn't offering a good reason to vote for them, it's going to be perceived as a big risk. Both parties put Blacks last. However, it is a big risk to go to the other side, particularly if that side is viewed as the greater of the two evils. The way I see it, if I've been voting a certain way for a long time, you need to give me a good reason to change my vote. And it needs to be better than what I'm currently getting. Don't tell me how much worse my party is. Tell me what YOU can do.
And I know that many politicians aren't compelled to do anything for Black people. This is why I see threads like this and wonder "who cares who Blacks vote for?". Truth is, I think some people are more concerned about making sure the Republicans maintain power, and not about Black people. I think some people view the Black vote as problematic to those who want to make sure the Republicans stay in power.
My father got stopped by the police alot, and he is a law-abiding citizen. I was in the car a few times when he got pulled over. My brother has been pulled over several times, and none of those times was he found to be breaking the law. How would conservatism help in that aspect?
Don't speed, run red lights or stop signs, drive recklessly or disobey other normal traffic laws in the jurisdiction you're driving in. Also, replace head lights, tail lights, etc., on time.
Those are typically the things that draw attention. Don't give the police any kind of reason to pull you over.
In Green_Mariner's defense, though, do most white people go 55 m.p.h. on a multilane highway? Do most go through yellow lights? And I will tell you of a housing commissioner who I personally know who was doing his job, inspecting low income housing and was hassled by the police. When he tried to identify himself he said "(a)m I the Queen of England"?
Still I think black conservatives have the better of the argument. If black people want the benefits of living in an advanced society their leaders need to promote values and behavior consonant with that society.
In Green_Mariner's defense, though, do most white people go 55 m.p.h. on a multilane highway? Do most go through yellow lights?
The police don’t typically pull over drivers going 60 in a 55 m.p.h. zone, although they certainly can. But if you’re doing 75, 85 or 95, then eventually you will get stopped and ticketed. There are reams of data on this.
It is perfectly lawful to go through yellow lights, so I don’t understand that comment.
The problem is that people constantly break the law and do wrong things, like children who do things secretly behind your back and think they can get away with it. Doing this is human nature. Then when they get caught, then cry foul.
The police don’t typically pull over drivers going 60 in a 55 m.p.h. zone, although they certainly can. But if you’re doing 75, 85 or 95, then eventually you will get stopped and ticketed. There are reams of data on this.
It is perfectly lawful to go through yellow lights, so I don’t understand that comment.
The problem is that people constantly break the law and do wrong things, like children who do things secretly behind your back and think they can get away with it. Doing this is human nature. Then when they get caught, then cry foul.
Most of the time they don't, but there are some cases where they do. There are cases where people get pulled over for going only 5 mph over the speed limit. While driving way above the speed limit guarantees you get in trouble, it still leaves this to wonder: Who is more likely to get pulled over and ticketed for driving barely 5 mph above the speed limit? Who is more likely to get a break, and who isn't?
From my own personal experience, I've been in a car with some drivers who would go as much as 20 mph over the speed limit and not get pulled over. I was in the car with a young Asian male who drove 75 mph in a 40 mph zone. And here's the kicked. This was done on a street with alot of winding curves. I thought "dude, you're going to get us arrested or killed if you don't stop". He was engaging in purposely reckless behavior, and I never saw a police officer get him.
I also had the opportunity to listen to a very young person speak about his reckless driving. He spoke as if he had a problem with not being able to drive really fast/reckless. He managed to get one of his tickets thrown out because he knew someone who worked for the police department. Sometimes people get off because of who they know.
I can't say for others, but I personally like the idea of being born equal before the law and having Creator endowed rights that governments are instituted to secure - and do nothing more without consent of the governed.
I can't tell if that's conservatism or liberalism, but it is just plain "republican form of government".
For those who consent to be governed, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
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 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.
