50th Anniversary of the Sit Ins... - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 02-02-2010, 04:21 AM

Monday was the anniversary of the beginning of the end for segregation in the south... it started in Greensboro, NC and quickly spread up and down the Atlantic Seaboard.. it reignited the fervor started by Rosa Parks in the mid 50's and was a catalyst for MLK... it later merged with the Peace Movement and the early feminist movement to create a very powerful and creative force that changed american politics forever.

The images of Bull Connor, complete with high pressure hoses and police dogs, and all the shenanigans of those who resisted changed are forever etched in the brain...

Sit-ins reignited the civil rights movement 50 years ago - USATODAY.com

Quote:

The fight pitted black college students and a few of their white peers against the city's white power structure and its downtown merchants over the right to sit down and eat lunch. At the time, blacks could spend money in those stores but couldn't eat at the stores' lunch counters.

The lunch counter of 1960 was the equivalent of fast-food restaurants today. Hamburger chains were just beginning to appear on the American landscape. Ray Kroc had opened his first McDonald's about five years earlier; Burger King had gone national just the year before. People wanting a sandwich or a hamburger popped over to the lunch counter of department stores, drugstores and five-and-dime stores to have a bite.

Except black people.

State and local ordinances known as Jim Crow laws in at least 11 Southern states prohibited interracial interaction in most areas of public life — restaurants, schools, courtrooms, buses and trains, movie theaters, even reform schools.

Starting 50 years ago Monday, students across the South decided to change that.

PatsWSB47 · 02-02-2010, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

Monday was the anniversary of the beginning of the end for segregation in the south... it started in Greensboro, NC and quickly spread up and down the Atlantic Seaboard.. it reignited the fervor started by Rosa Parks in the mid 50's and was a catalyst for MLK... it later merged with the Peace Movement and the early feminist movement to create a very powerful and creative force that changed american politics forever.

The images of Bull Connor, complete with high pressure hoses and police dogs, and all the shenanigans of those who resisted changed are forever etched in the brain...

Sit-ins reignited the civil rights movement 50 years ago - USATODAY.com

Still work to do but we've come a long way in 50 years. can you imagine the reaction of some of the crackers if someone told them we'd have a black president in 50 years?

***Patters*** · 02-02-2010, 07:13 AM

Another way to look at it is as the anniversary of the modern Republican Party. Although the Republicans made overtures to southern whites in the past, it really began with the onset on Civil Rights. It pretty much culminated when Ronnie Reagan, hero of the right, launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, known only as the place where 3 civil rights workers were murdered, and then spoke about states rights, which at the time was the code word for segregration. At any rate, those blacks who engaged in the sit in showed an awful lot of courage in leading the second defeat of the white racists in the South.

PatsWSB47 · 02-02-2010, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

Another way to look at it is as the anniversary of the modern Republican Party. Although the Republicans made overtures to southern whites in the past, it really began with the onset on Civil Rights. It pretty much culminated when Ronnie Reagan, hero of the right, launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, known only as the place where 3 civil rights workers were murdered, and then spoke about states rights, which at the time was the code word for segregration. At any rate, those blacks who engaged in the sit in showed an awful lot of courage in leading the second defeat of the white racists in the South.

Patters back off that a bit. You make it sound like Regan chose Philidephia to launch his campaign because he'd have a sympthic, black murdering, states rights crowd that would ralley around him....and you think we'd hold him as a hero because of that?

***Harry Boy*** · 02-02-2010, 08:40 AM

Liberals "Despise" Reagan.

***Patters*** · 02-02-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

Patters back off that a bit. You make it sound like Reagan chose Philadelphia to launch his campaign because he'd have a sympathetic, black murdering, states rights crowd that would rally around him....and you think we'd hold him as a hero because of that?

But, indeed he did. He chose Philadelphia, MS intentionally. I think the right-wing regularly glosses over its shameful history in this regard, and Reagan should be held accountable. While I'm sure there are some younger conservatives and Republicans who are no fans of Reagan, the fact is among people older than, say 40, he is held in extremely high regard, largely because he was seen as upholding their principles. I have almost never heard a conservative hold Reagan accountable for his prejudice. To me, prejudice is a very big deal, especially in 1980, well after he should have known better.

Look Away, Dixieland

Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (calling it "humiliating to the South"), and ran for governor of California in 1966 promising to wipe the Fair Housing Act off the books. "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so." After the Republican convention in 1980, Reagan travelled to the county fair in Neshoba, Mississippi, where, in 1964, three Freedom Riders had been slain by the Ku Klux Klan. Before an all-white crowd of tens of thousands, Reagan declared: "I believe in states' rights".

As president, Reagan aligned his justice department on the side of segregation, supporting the fundamentalist Bob Jones University in its case seeking federal funds for institutions that discriminate on the basis of race. In 1983, when the supreme court decided against Bob Jones, Reagan, under fire from his right in the aftermath, gutted the Civil Rights Commission.

PatsWSB47 · 02-02-2010, 10:43 AM

[QUOTE=Patters;1717113]But, indeed he did. He chose Philadelphia, MS intentionally. I think the right-wing regularly glosses over its shameful history in this regard, and Reagan should be held accountable. While I'm sure there are some younger conservatives and Republicans who are no fans of Reagan, the fact is among people older than, say 40, he is held in extremely high regard, largely because he was seen as upholding their principles. I have almost never heard a conservative hold Reagan accountable for his prejudice. To me, prejudice is a very big deal, especially in 1980, well after he should have known better.

Look Away, Dixieland

Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (calling it "humiliating to the South"), and ran for governor of California in 1966 promising to wipe the Fair Housing Act off the books. "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so." After the Republican convention in 1980, Reagan travelled to the county fair in Neshoba, Mississippi, where, in 1964, three Freedom Riders had been slain by the Ku Klux Klan. Before an all-white crowd of tens of thousands, Reagan declared: "I believe in states' rights".

Quote:

As president, Reagan aligned his justice department on the side of segregation, supporting the fundamentalist Bob Jones University in its case seeking federal funds for institutions that discriminate on the basis of race. In 1983, when the supreme court decided against Bob Jones, Reagan, under fire from his right in the aftermath, gutted the Civil Rights Commission.

Regan shouldn't be considered heroic for those views and they surely aren't why he's admired by me or many republicans I'm sure, but how can you know he wasn't trying to be pragmatic(though way behind the times)thinking that more harm than good would be done. I'm not just trying to make excuses for him but I do think he was a bit ignorant about race. It was a different time in the 60's and a lot of enlightenment was long over-due.

Consider this speech by Abraham Lincoln for some perspective. Even with these views Lincoln was ahead of his time regarding race but my point is that practicality sometimes influences ones views and though Regan was wrong his motivation may not have been too distant from Lincolns....though Regan should have known better I quess. Lincoln certanly would be Al Sharptonized today if he gave this speech today:

Quote:

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forbid their ever living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the ***** is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,--the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with judge Douglas, he is not my equal in many respects, --certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
Speech at Columbus Ohio, September 16, 1859

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2657/2657.txt[/QUOTE

***DarrylS*** · 02-02-2010, 10:47 AM

[QUOTE=PatsSB42;1717188]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

But, indeed he did. He chose Philadelphia, MS intentionally. I think the right-wing regularly glosses over its shameful history in this regard, and Reagan should be held accountable. While I'm sure there are some younger conservatives and Republicans who are no fans of Reagan, the fact is among people older than, say 40, he is held in extremely high regard, largely because he was seen as upholding their principles. I have almost never heard a conservative hold Reagan accountable for his prejudice. To me, prejudice is a very big deal, especially in 1980, well after he should have known better.

Look Away, Dixieland

Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (calling it "humiliating to the South"), and ran for governor of California in 1966 promising to wipe the Fair Housing Act off the books. "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so." After the Republican convention in 1980, Reagan travelled to the county fair in Neshoba, Mississippi, where, in 1964, three Freedom Riders had been slain by the Ku Klux Klan. Before an all-white crowd of tens of thousands, Reagan declared: "I believe in states' rights".

Regan shouldn't be considered heroic for those views and they surely aren't why he's admired by me or many republicans I'm sure, but how can you know he wasn't trying to be pragmatic(though way behind the times)thinking that more harm than good would be done. I'm not just trying to make excuses for him but I do think he was a bit ignorant about race. It was a different time in the 60's and a lot of enlightenment was long over-due.

Consider this speech by Abraham Lincoln for some perspective. Even with these views Lincoln was ahead of his time regarding race but my point is that practicality sometimes influences ones views and though Regan was wrong his motivation may not have been too distant from Lincolns....though Regan should have known better I quess. Lincoln certanly would be Al Sharptonized today if he gave this speech today:

When Lincoln gave his speech, it was prior to the civil war.. and guys like Sharpton could never have existed as there were no educational provisions for the black folk.. that is really a pizz poor comparison..

Doubt if Lincoln would have given that speech today..

PatsWSB47 · 02-02-2010, 10:51 AM

[QUOTE=DarrylS;1717190]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

When Lincoln gave his speech, it was prior to the civil war.. and guys like Sharpton could never have existed as there were no educational provisions for the black folk.. that is really a pizz poor comparison..

Doubt if Lincoln would have given that speech today..

You missed the larger point of my post. Now go back and reply as if I never mentioned Sharpton. Attitudes in the 60's were not a whole lot away from where they were in the civil war but change came very quickly(comparitively speeking) after that. Remember it's you posted that it was just 50 years ago when the sit in occurred. Regan grew up in that back drop so it's plausible that segregation attitudes were not as racist as they sound today.

***DarrylS*** · 02-02-2010, 11:11 AM

[QUOTE=PatsSB42;1717194]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

You missed the larger point of my post. Now go back and reply as if I never mentioned Sharpton. Attitudes in the 60's were not a whole lot away from where they were in the civil war but change came very quickly(comparitively speeking) after that. Remember it's you posted that it was just 50 years ago when the sit in occurred. Regan grew up in that back drop so it's plausible that segregation attitudes were not as racist as they sound today.

But you did use Sharpton, either you want to use it as a comparison or do not.. having grown up in that era there is no excuse for what Reagan did, except under the guise of political expediency... the reality is that the great divide started then, as many dems from the south became republicans.. and the dems often stood alone on these issues..

Not sure how anyone can defend impediments to the great groundswell that took place.. particularly for no other reason than for Party Loyalty or to garner votes..

Reagan was very good at what he did, he began the polarization of this country and someday will be remembered as the author of the "Great Divide".. personally still waiting for something to "trickle down" to me, so far it has not.