• MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s a short source and I’d like to see it also explain some of the racial dynamics going on at the time, but otherwise ok.

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    8 months ago

    Pretty standard right wing whataboutism lol “bu-bu-but what about this thing that happen 150 years ago??? Clearly the Democratic party still wants slavery!!!”

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      All the racist democrats left the party to join the Republican Party when democrats voted to give black peoples rights.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        Even though the names of the two major parties haven’t changed since 1854 (when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs), the ideological alignment of them has continued to shift, at least five times in total (or maybe six, if you count MAGA christo-fascism as separate from what the party was before).

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’ve always thought the MAGA phase was just an extension of what the party became during the George W and Obama years. Trump just exploited what was already there.

  • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    8 months ago

    I say we compromise and carve “LOSER” on every single monument. You still get your statues but everyone knows you’re a fuckin loser.

  • Bleys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    8 months ago

    Whenever someone pulls out the “dEmOcRaTs WeRe ThE cOnFeDeRaTeS” argument, you know they’re either dumb as fuck or arguing entirely in bad faith. Like bro the parties switched in the 1960s it’s just names at this point.

    • weeeeum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Saying the parties “switched” is a large oversimplification. But yes, as the Democrats became anti segregation, it had dissatisfied white, racist, voters in the south. Of which Republicans, were all too happy to cater to, thus the “switch”.

    • Stern@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago
      1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes Democrats Republicans
      House 153 of 244 (63%) 136 of 171 (80%)
      Senate 46 of 67 (69%) 27 of 33 (82%)
      1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes Union Confederacy
      House 281 of 313 (90%) 8 of 102 (8%)
      Senate 72 of 78 (92%) 1 of 22 (5%)
      1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes Dem/Union Rep/Union Dem/Confed Rep/Confed
      House 145 of 152 (95%) 136 of 161 (85%) 8 of 91 (9%) 0 of 11 (0%)
      Senate 45 of 46 (98%) 27 of 32 (84%) 1 of 21 (5%) 0 of 1 (0%)

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

      All I’m sayin’

  • TehWorld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    A close friend was raised in the Carolinas. They were taught that the civil war was about “states rights”. It wasn’t until they were an adult that they did their own looking into what “rights” the southern states were fighting for. It really opened my eyes to how the blinders have been put on so many people. I’m 100% sure that I have my own set, but it’s important to remember, and engage these people when you have an opportunity.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    What? A bad faith argument from the right? I can’t believe it… took this long to hit 1 million.