Is America ready for a woman (Hilary) or black (Obama) presidential candidate?

What you neglect to mention is that I and others dissected your dissection. This speech was about unity, and most definitely doesn't race bait. It does comment on a problem peculiar to a minority community, but does not attempt to lay the blame for that problem anywhere except in that same community.

 

No.

 

Classic post! Now, I guess all Bush voters dig having slaves.

The meltdown continues.

 

No, but I would believe it's very likely that a lot of his supporter descendents of those that did. Definitely be an interesting to do some polling/ research on.

 

Interesting post glad_ken. Very interesting...

 

Yep very interesting post glad_ken

 

Maui Wowee!!

 

yep, very interesting. not only are bush supporters "stupid"...they're also slaveowners or descendants of slaveowners who vote in that mindset.

is this really where liberalism has gone? if so, that's just sad. seriously...your candidate got beat and your congressional candidates keep getting their asses handed to them...and the best we can do is this???

a little tip for the democrats....rethink your approach. sour grapes didn't work real well in 2000...and it looks a helluva lot worse right now.

 

Those maps are interesting, historically. How can it not be?

The maps are what they are, factual. What you make of them, how you interpret those facts, that's your business. glad_ken didn't analze them, he just posted the pictures.

 

you're right, sam...i'm just guessing how they're being analyzed. i think that's a pretty fair assumption.

the dems have lost seats in congress over the last 2 elections as well. those don't show up on electoral maps. i wonder what genealogy of slaveholders has to do with that, as well?

 

So if in a Bush bashing thread I post a picture of Bush and then one of Hitler, am I not 'saying' something? If the clear intent is not to show the similarity of the two maps, then what is the point - to randomly post pictures?

 

Not at all. I understand the defensive reactions, especially in the context of this thread, but those two maps show an interesting aspect of cultural history.

In no way do the maps say "look, 'red' states wish they still had slaves!" But it does show what is either a complete coincidence OR that our cultural geographic divides have deep roots and are very complex. The two sides of the civil war were divided over much more than slavery.

If anyone thinks the north was all peachy for people of color, or that it was a wonderful, tolerant fairy land, I strongly recommend the book PARADISE ALLEY. The book details the largest riot in our nation's history, the New York City draft riots. Mobs of white people, in the north mind you, roved the streets, looted houses, and hung dozens "free" black people from lamp posts.

Anyway, when someone first sent the two maps to me, they didn't mean "look at them dumb republicans!" they meant "wow, these issues of different 'values' and thinking patterns go way, way back." You can be offended by the presentation, but the maps are factual and striking. Only Iowa and Ohio differ! We were only at war 150 years ago -- not that long.

Anyway, Max, if someone is saying red states are 'dumb' and 'racist' it isn't me, and it may not be the person who posted the maps.

 

I think if there is any "relationship" at all, it's probably based more on liberal/conservative traditions than anything else. After all, comparing the regions in red, the majority of them, to the other areas in the older map, points out traditionally conservative parts of the country, as opposed to traditionally liberal areas. So much of the "red" used to be dominated by conservative Democrats.

The actions of a brave Democrat in the '60's, LBJ, to attempt to give equal rights to Black Americans had a direct effect that he was warned would happen. Here was a man with political courage. He had his faults, but in this case, he took the right actions, despite the consequences. As a liberal Democrat in Texas, who has to put up with those consequences, I have no regrets.




Keep D&D Civil!!

 

The maps are misleading. The free states before the civil war were those that did not have econimies based on agriculture, in other words, those with large urban population centers. The states that supported Kerry in the election are those with largely urban populations. It has nothing to do with racism or slavery, and everything to do with the fact that people in urban areas largely supported Kerry and people in non-urban areas largely supported Bush.

 

Yep, it's the ol' classic "post a point or picture that implies something that's insulting, then when the insulted call you on it, back off and act like the insulted are just overreacting" tactic.

Happens all the time in this forum.

I'm waiting for the obligatory reply saying "well, if you're insulted by that map, maybe you need to look in the mirror" post.

 

Probably the best interpretation of the map.

 

So now just a picture of the United States is akin to a picture of Hitler? Any link to the Antebellum South makes you defensive? Think, man, reason it out. There's an explanation.

Duh, the point was to link the 2 pictures. They show exactly the same breakdown of "red/tan" and "blue/green" states, how could you not notice that? That's not in-depth analysis, that's just the ability to see.

How's this: the South, both historically and today, was/is rural and socially conservative compared to the west coast and northeast. People in the north weren't morally superior to the south, they just had less use for slaves. The entire pre-Civil War economy in the South was dependant on slave labor for cotton and tobacco production. In more industrial areas or those with different crops, like the midwest, slaves were less viable economically, and thus easier for states to abandon their use.

The same factors: rural, conservative, apply to the South today, and as we know those 2 factors lead to Republican victories. The South was Democratically dominated for a long period of history is true - but two factors contribute to this: (1) the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln, and (2) the Democratic party was historically the more conservative of the two.

 

blah blah blah. all that's fine and well. but that isn't why it's posted. remember the context of the thread. do you thinka black guy could get elected president..the answer in the post containing the map was "no." i think the message was pretty clear.

 

Come on, Max. You're just overreacting...

He was just saying...

 

Thanks glad_ken. Must of touched a nerve there...