News, Views and Analysis
<span>As you know, the real oppressors weren't the fat rural hicks, but the well-off people in the cities and the landlords who ran the system. The hicks were mobilized for Jim Crow, but they weren't the leaders of it. In fact, as you know, northern politicians were often deeply complicit in the preservation of Jim Crow - we may associate racism with southern accents and hicks, but we shouldn't. </span>You know, I think I'll call you on that. I recall Herbert Aptheker making a similar case in Towards Negro Freedom back in the sixties. But the notion that the racist proles couldn't do what they did without being instructed by landowners and pols strikes me as nonsense.I don't buy it. That goes back to the old CP line that there was no race struggle, only a class struggle. I think we've moved forward since then. I didn't even really accept that back in my pro-CP days.But I'm open to counter-arguments.<span>The guys torturing the victim were not - from what I can tell - socially or ethnically different from the victim. </span>I already addressed that.
Well, Dr. Dawg, I will grant your point on class/race. Perhaps I could revise my point to say that the bigger racists used and use decent English and lived in nice houses, even if the proles could be nasty brutes all on their own. Racism wasn't, and isn't, a problem primarily of lower class hicks.As far as bigger racists go, I would not be at all bothered by the idea of Dick Cheney or Tony Blair being dressed in bras and panties and chased by angry dogs . I chuckle when I think about it, actually, even though in my responsible moments I just want them sent to prison for life, after a fair trial before a jury. If either would grow a beard I would most definately be amused if either had to eat his beard.
Post a Comment