Talk:Civil Rights Movement

This article on the civil rights movement is appallingly short.Panini 09:59, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Cleaver and Stokely

were more Black Power activists - and revolutionaries- than civil rights advocates. AliceBG 15:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

New Section

Created a new section on the role the GOP has consistently played in the Civil Rights movement since I thought it relevant, it can be moved lower on the page if people want. I have done a thorough analysis of the Democrat claim that the parties switched here.[1] Anyway, there are Congressional links relating to vote totals mentioned there that can be used here, e.g.:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182 http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/FinalSenatePassageCR1964.pdf http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0619.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States#1960s

Anyway, I just figured Conservapedia could use this information. My current website isn't really political so I'm not going to be using this information except when debating anyway, so I figured I'd put it on the site if you want to go into more detail with it. I may not have time to work on the section much more so if anyone wants to research, detail, and source this more thoroughly it would be with my encouragement. --Joshua Zambrano 03:04, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

A few issues in the article

• Does the title need to be completely capitalized? Most spellings simply read "civil rights movement."
• "Democrat reaction" This subsection header in of itself quietly promotes the notion, propagated by Marxist historians, that Democratic Party repression of blacks during Reconstruction was "reactionary" and therefore "right-wing."
• "The Republican coalition in the South fell apart in the 1870s, and conservative white Redeemers took control." There's some truth to it, though vague. The Redeemers which ended up taking control at the fall of Reconstruction were indeed on the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, namely Wade Hampton, though were not quite conservative overall.
• "Sern. John Kennedy voted against [the Civil Rights Act of 1957]." How many times have I explained the simple fact that Kennedy's "opposition" was voting for a weakening amendment? He ultimately voted in favor of final passage, so this vague statement is 95% misleading for readers. The user who spammed this copypasta should correct this, or I will in every article where it's been plastered.

—LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Thursday, 14:23, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

You raise some interesting and valid points. IMO, this article should be written in context with our Black History article, and not have an Angelo-American Eurocentric white supremacist institutionally racist perspective common in academia. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 14:48, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

Thanks; and as a whole, Conservapedia can drastically renovate and expand civil rights/black history–related articles into a comprehensive series. What most on the political right nowadays fail to do is actually provide a meaningful alternative to the neo-Marxist distortions of civil rights history—they rightfully bash the neo-Marxists as propagandists, but in turn cannot give historical civil rights leaders the credit they deserve in a truly unbiased, objective framework.

This is where we have an excellent opportunity to actually inform history-intrigued folks properly. I'm back to developing the series about anti-lynching legislation history in the U.S. (and no, the bill Biden signed doesn't count, because it was pointless and merely for deceptive optics), and despite Conservapedia's currently abysmal page view growth overall, I see an opportunity in more of the long-run to gain a decent readership for this series. And man, will the leftists be irritated to see my massive compilation of evidence implicating New Deal liberalism as the hindrance to civil rights! —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Thursday, 14:56, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

Well, you can't deny the contributions Marxism made to the civil rights movement to make it what it is today. If the "civil rights movement" were left to grow organically since 1900, there is reasonable cause to say you or I never would have heard of it. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:01, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

It should be clear that, from the standpoint of the outer garb, Marxist "support" for civil rights had all been a deceptive ruse. It's part of the larger thesis/antithesis Hegelian game, and in this instance, it clearly was an intentional plot to frame civil rights as a left-wing/"Communist" trait, thereby enabling the racist opposition to be branded "right-wing." Communists have always been racist, evident in their regimes repressing racial/ethnic minorities—thus, small factions of Communist banditti in Western countries with strong anti-Communist leanings who claim to be "pro–civil rights" and who are pawns of foreign regimes are simply massive deceivers with a larger agenda.

Remember, the older generation of civil rights activists were strongly anti-Communist, such as Walter Francis White and Roy Wilkins. Both loathed Communist infiltration of the civil rights movement, and White particularly was careful to avoid any appearance of comsymp association, which would have led to McCarthyite attacks. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Thursday, 15:06, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

That's the part that needs to be emphasized. Without Marxism, civil rights likely would have remained largely a church affair. So now you have to deal with Marxist infiltration into the churches, which remains strong in Black History. That is difficult to call attention to without being critical. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:15, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

For background, I'd recommend reading Toward a Soviet America (1927), the chapters on a "Negro Soviet Socialist Republic". Communists realized early on that by trash talking God & the church, they weren't getting anywhere with Blacks. They needed to compromise Black preachers to win support from African Americans.

It's difficult to call attention to this without being belittling. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:18, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

[EC] Oh please, the civil rights cause long predated neo-Marxist infiltration, being influential before then. It may have headed in a slightly different direction (notably since the conservative element, manifested by the Black and Tans, emphasized economic self-improvement before federal action), though crediting the movement in the mid-1900s to Communists is literally comsymp agitprop. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Thursday, 15:19, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

huh? what do you mean by neo-Marxist?

The Marxist line, "religion is the opiate of the masses" carried weight with Italians and Eastern Europeans (the people targeted by the 1924 Immigration Act), but backfired with American Blacks. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:22, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

Old-school Marxism is different from neo-Marxism. The form of Marxism in the U.S. that claimed to be pro–civil rights and which the New Left grew out of seemed to resemble neo-Marxism more than it does the old-school variant.

Anyways, please don't expect me to believe the neo-Marxist propaganda line that Communists deserve credit for the civil rights movement as great saviors for blacks. I'm a hardline reactionary conservative, not a comsymp. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Thursday, 15:29, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

What year forward to count neo-Marxism as beginning?

I'm simply making two points: (1) the civil rights movement as it's known today has huge Marxist influence; and (2) there is no evidence that anything known as the civil rights movement would be recognizable today without the Marxist influence on it.

We have to work with what we got, not what we wish or pretend to be. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:33, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

Marxism is very fluid and flexible - that's how it can drop trash talking God with Blacks and embrace the church. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:37, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

To reiterate: I'm not sticking to your comsymp narrative. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Thursday, 15:38, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

Read up on the African Methodist Episcopal Church. That's how Marxists recruited Blacks into the Democrat party and remains the Democrat party's most powerful voter base today. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:41, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

African_Methodist_Episcopal_Church#Social_issues. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:52, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

Bzzt, wrong. There were two phases of the black shift towards Democrats—the impact of the New Deal brought about a partial realignment, with about a quarter to a third still remaining solidly Republican. However, in 1964, nearly all of the remainder abandoned the GOP. It was not impacted by Communists, contrary to silly comsymp fables. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Thursday, 16:03, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

okay, thanks. I'll just ignore history and take your word for it. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 16:13, May 18, 2023 (EDT)