Trent Lott

[Jedi Master Carr]

Anybody here about Trent Lott here is some of the story

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20021213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_lott_30

To me he made a very racist statment by saying at Thurmond's 100 birthday that he was proud that Mississippi vote for Strom Thurmon, a segregationist for President back in 1948, he then added ,"And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." (I assume he means the civil rights movement) he has apologiezed barely, it has taken criticism from the right and the left. Still he refuses to step down as Republican leader. Personally that will be a huge mistaken from what I heard Black Americans are angry and this could make them get up and vote in great numbers in two years. Trent Lott could be the first go since around 50% of Miss. is black. Bush could even be in trouble, he made an incredible stupid statement and his party could pay if he doesn't step aside.

[Princess Sunflower]

He was just on TV trying to apologize for what he said. He admits what he said was inappropriate but I'm afraid the damage is already done. He really needs to step down to safe face for the rest of his constituency. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

:spank

[BUFFJEDI]

Boy what a dolt and Biggot. But I must say , it is funny that Blacks can BLANTLY be racisist and no big deal, but let a white man say something SLIGHTLY Racsist(all be it WRONG WRONG WRONG)
And it's the end of the world. Pathetic what the worlds come too.

[BUFFJEDI]

And I mean Slightly because we yet to know Exactly what he ment.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well Lott also has a reputation, he has spoken at a very racist group, I forget the name at the moment. And he has said things in the past. I think personally he maybe. I think he meant too and he meant things would be better under white rule, I don't think Thurmond changed either, I live in that state and I never understood why people voted for him he was senile half the time and to me a biggot. I know its possible he could have changed but its very hard for a leopard to change its spots.

[BUFFJEDI]

Oh I could never argue that

. That's one very good point to which I make when I say You are wasting your time when you Vote, It's fixed anyway so why waste your time. Now I personally have a problem with anyone who is racisit and I'm Very sure he is and ment it as a rascisit remake. But I Just find it pathetic that Blacks can be Very Vocal about there Hate for whites/hispanic's and noone bats an eye, that's allO_o

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well most people say bad things about Farrakkan but I think its because he is more vocal than any white Racist. I think the reason for that is black and hispanics are in the minority and certain people think that they can't be racist or aren't really racist or something to that effect.

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

Farrakhan is the black Hitler. I can't stand him, and what he preaches is hate, not civil rights advocacy.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Al Sharpton is another one, though hes not nearly as bad as Farrakan.

A small group of black girls at school are mad at me because I called them "black". One of my co-workers and I sit around and talk about color all the time. If she doesnt know the name of a certian child, she'll point and say something like, "That white boy over there in the yellow t-shirt".

I dont take offense at that. How can I? If the kid is white, he/she is white. If the kid is black, he/she is black. Im tellin ya, most of the racism at our school is done by the black kids, not the other way around.

[Jedieb]

Let me start by saying that I've always thought that Trent Lott is a towering putz. He's never been one of my favorite people so it's not like I can be objective about him. So it may surprise you to know I don't think the comment was as bad as some people have made it out to be. What it was was incredibly STUPID! I've seen clips of him making the statement. At the time, no one thought much of it. It wasn't until it kept getting taken out of context that it became the issue it is now. The whole session was a tribute to Thurmon (Who I despise even more than Lott). It was done in the style of a roast. Now, if you've ever seen a roast you know how rauncy the jokes can get. Where Lott screwed up is that he forgot he wasn't some lame comedian but a U.S. Senator. I don't think he honestly set out to make a racist statement. He just proved once again that some nimrods have no business ever trying to be funny.

But that's as far as I'll go to even try to defend this jerk. In college, he led, I repeat LED, a movement to keep blacks out of his fraternity. During someone's campaign 30 years ago he made a similiar racist statement. In all probability, Lott is probably a good ol' Mississippi boy who's bigotry has been forced into the closet because of the advances we've made in civil rights over the last 50 years. Believe me, if the South were still segregated, Trent Lott would be a happy camper. This isn't the kind of guy who would have led marches. He's the kind of guy who would have cheered on George Wallace as he stood on the steps of the University of Alabama.

I don't think he's going to resign. He may get censured. There's an outside shot he may lose his leadership position. But he's not leaving the Senate. The Dems probably don't wan't him to leave. As long as he's a figurehead of the Republican party they have an easy target and the Republicans have a constant source of embarrassment.

What a jagoff! :shootin

[Taylor Millard]

*sigh* Fine I'll enter this debate (:lol)

A reminder actually about George Wallace. He originally ran on a non-Segregationist ticket. When he couldn't get any votes, he switched to Segregationist, and then back to non-Segregationist (Don't believe me...ask Sam Donaldson...he told me personally).

The thing about Trent Lott is how he reacted to his comments. From what I know (after hearing the comments) he only said, "America would have been better had Strom Thurmond won the presidency" and technically that could've meant anything (lower taxes, balanced budget, etc etc etc etc). The comments were instead taken to mean, "Because there'd be segregation."

Lott mishandled the reaction of it, he appeared sorry but wasn't, I guess, sincere enough for most people. He speech Friday was fine enough for me...but that's just me.

If Lott has clarified his comments in the first place, this wouldn't've been blown outta proportion the way it has been. I doubt he's a racist, the fraternity thing was done with the current head of the LA Times (I believe), who (again to my knowledge) is a big liberal.

And this is apparently old news...I mean it's 30 years in the past...people can change after all. My own personal political philosophy changed over a period of a summer. I can be convinced that a viewpoint of mine is wrong in a deep-thinking discussion.

That all being said, Lott should resign as Senate Majority Leader. He's too much of a wimp and tries to cuddle the Democrats too much. For gosh sake, the Republicans are in control...why not act like it!

And I will say this...if we're going to go nuts over Trent Lott...I can point to a Senator in West Virginia who's said worse, was a member of the KKK, and is one of the most highly respected senators out there (Robert Byrd).

Okay...political talk show host rant off...*switches back to SWFans mode*...so...who's gonna go see The Two Towers on Opening Night?

[Darth Viscera]

People sometimes say stupid things that they don't mean, and that's a fact. He was at a party, it's not like he had his speechwriter present and constantly writing up casual conversations for him. The truth is, there are a lot of ways to accidently sound racist in this country, especially if you're white.

Ariel Sharon, for one, is on record as saying that Americans would be idiots without the Jewish people. However, he said it during the heat of a live political debate with his opponent, so IMO he can retract it, because there are times when people just don't thoroughly think their thoughts out. Humans should be given the gift of a mouth that only speaks when thoughts have fully coalesced.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know that about Wallace and that is why I am not sure if he actually changed his opinions about blacks he may have died a racist for all we know. And Lott well I believe he is a racist partly because he spoke in front of a racist/anti-semitic group. The name escapes me its one this conservative order groups but their website is full of hate. Anybody who supports somebody like that is racist and that is just my opinion. As far as Thurmond well sure you could argue taken out of context, but Thurmond's whole platform just about was segregation he split from the democratic part because Harry Truman was taking up the civil rights issue and he ran under the Dixiecrate ticket. So the reason why everybody took it that way is because there isn't any thing else about Thurmond's presential run that anybody remember except that.

[Darth23]

I think it's hilariuos that the republicans seem to eb falling all overthemselves on this one.

Lott has issued a new 'apology' just abotu every day, the White House doesn' t want to take too strong a stand and leading Republicans are goingto hold a meeting to decide whether or not they want to dump Lott as Majority leader.

I guess their afraid some people might accuse the Republican party of being the party of xenophonia and elitism. Like that doesn't happen all the time already anyway.

[Jedieb]

The President pretty much abandoned Lott this weekend and his colleagues are following suit. He asked both Condolesa Rice and Powell for letters of support and they both turned him down. In a development that I find positively laughable, Lott will be interviewed on BET tonight. Most agree that it's too little too late.

As for Wallace, he was interested in one thing above all others, power and the governorship of Alabama. And if being a racist would get him elected then so be it. And if a non-segregationist stance would get his wife elected so that he could continue to wield power then he'd do that as well. The guy was a bigot pure and simple. Trading stances back and forth to get power shows how little he valued the blacks in his state. The fact that he was the best choice blacks had available to them shows just how screwed up life was for blacks in the South and the U.S. in general. To quote a woman who voted for Wallace;
"I'd rather deal with a devil I know than one I don't."

[Jedi Master Carr]

The only thing about Wallace is did he have a change after he was almost killed back in 68? I personally have no idea, its hard to read a man's mind. He did meet with Jesse Jackson and Jackson thought he had changed, of course Jesse could have been lied to. I really have no idea, maybe somebody could do some research and ask people who knew him towards the end we could possibly find out.

[Sanis Prent]

Guys, get over it. The man was a politician. He was a representative politician. You make a career out of getting what your constituency wants. If your constituency are racists, that means backing their play. It may be ethically questionable, but its solid gold career planning. Your constituency changes their tune, then you change your tune. The death cry of many a politician has come when his views do not equal the views of those he represents.

I'm no racist, and I doubt that Wallace was either. He knew how to get the job done, though.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Still what Wallace did was wrong, and I can't see just following with the public view. If the people said lets round up this population and kill them does that mean the polticians should do it?

[Diego Van Derveld]

Segregation, while an ethically charged issue, isn't one of life and death. Apples and oranges.

[Taylor Millard]

The day George Wallace died, Paul Harvey (said in my best Paul Harvey imitation) did a story about a young boxer who beat up a white guy who'd been beating down a black guy.

You who the boxer was? George Wallace. Politicians have to appeal to the masses of people to get elected. Look at people who've changed their positions on issues to get elected (George H.W. Bush called Reagan's economic policy 'Voodoo Economics' and then became his VP. Bill Clinton used to be anti-abortion but changed to get the Democratic Nomination.)

Almost everyone will change politics to get elected. It's a fact of life if the majority believes this to that.

[Jedieb]

Segregation WAS a matter of life and death to the blacks who were getting lynched, the civil rights workers who were murdered because they had the audacity to try to get blacks registered to vote, and the little girls who were getting blown up in black churchers. Wallace may have had a change of heart towards the end of his life, but it's no excuse for the stands he took during his lifetime. As far as his constituency is concerned, I do believe he represented the blacks in his state as well. He didn't listen to their voices unless it suited him. There were PLENTY of men and women (black AND white) of conviction who risked their careers and even their lives to fight segregation and racism in the South. George Wallace WASN'T one of them. That's how I'll always see it.

[Sanis Prent]

And you'll see it wrong, then. Being a segregation advocate does not make him an advocate to the lynchings and violence. There are extremists in every movement, and associating him with such is a dangerous assumption. You would have to put the blood of abortion clinic bombers on the hands of every Pro Life supporter if your logic held. Maybe those Muslims are all a bunch of suicide bombers too, while we're at it. The African American constituency, as well as those who were pro civil rights at the time, would not be nearly enough to carry the vote, and Wallace knew that. He had his finger on the pulse of the state...at that time. Fortunately, views change.

Let me put forth a hypothetical. Say you are a politician and there is something your constituency supports and you yourself do not support it. Do you take the moral high ground and stand against this, and make that the ticket you run on? No. You won't win. If you don't win, what if somebody who DOES ardently support that policy gets in office? Where has your precious moral high ground gotten you? Nowhere. But if you are against a policy and you make a political decision, and support it...at least you can be put in a position to do something about it, and even ween your constituency from it. Not saying it would be easy, but its better than going at the problem with a stiff upper lip, and coming out the loser anyway. You accomplish nothing there.

[Jedieb]

Politicians constantly abandoning their beliefs for matters of practicality isn't something to be proud of. Plus, you're acting as if politicians NEVER fight losing battles. There ARE some politicians who go against their constituencies and their party because they believe it's the right thing. Giving up a fight just because you know you can't win is gutless.

I'll see Wallace's career my way and history has proved me RIGHT. Seggregation in the South was immoral and an embarrassment to this nation's history. Again, men and women, black and white, stood up to it throughout the South's history. I have great admiration for the men and women who ran the underground Railroad and little respect for those who tried to put them out of business. I could care less if they thought they were doing their job or following the will of the majority. Those people who ran the UR and BROKE the law were heroes and history has remembered them that way. The same applies to those who battled segregation. Those who supported and are still alive have to APOLOGZE for their actions. They were WRONG then even if they were part of the majority.

[Sanis Prent]

History has PROVEN you right? I'll wait to see the final verdict, if you don't mind. The same history book is also probably telling you that people in Alabama are living without running water and electricity, and that the men are barefoot and the women are pregnant. I'm a bit too tired of all the stereotypes to care about some people's preconceived notions of history and reality.

[Taylor Millard]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Those who supported and are still alive have to APOLOGZE for their actions. They were WRONG then even if they were part of the majority.

Apologize? You want every white person over the age of 45 to write a letter and say, "We're sorry about something which happened back in 1865 (with slavery) and the mess which happened afterwards."

Whatever happened to actions speaking louder than words? Why can't they (the white people) just show that Segregation doesn't have a hold on them...i.e. being friends with a black person, not because it suits their purpose...but 'cause they want to be friends with them.

It is possible you know.

Why make someone apologize for something they had no part of or in, or ever would?

[Jedieb]

Why make someone apologize for something they had no part of or in, or ever would?

But George Wallace couldn't say that he had no part in it could he? And that's who we're talking about. I'm not saying all white men who lived in the South were evil bigots. I've said over and over that there were plenty of white southerners who didn't believe in segregation or racism. But George Wallace WASN'T one of them. When did I say ALL whites needed to apologize? I said that people who supported those policies were wrong and history has proved me right and forced many of them to abandon those outmoded and racist ideals and apoloogize for them. Don't believe me? Then what the hell has Lott been doing for two weeks if not APOLOGIZING for what he said? How many times have we heard him apologize for statements and attitudes that he made in the past? The fact is that if he'd made those statements in public in the 60's he would have gotten winks and pats on back from men like Wallace. Today he gets roasted over the coals for them, and rightly so.

The same history book is also probably telling you that people in Alabama are living without running water and electricity, and that the men are barefoot and the women are pregnant.
Who's using a stereotype now? I'm talking about people who openly supported racist policies. There was no excuse for it. Many around them knew it was wrong. You don't see me saying "everybody" in Alabama was a bigot, or all the white people in the South were racist. Those things aren't true. But what is true is that segregation wasn't an inherently racist and evil institution. There's no defense for it. If people like Wallace weren't bigots, then I guess bigots don't exist, because I don't see how you could get much worse.

[Sanis Prent]

I think if the man truly held those ideals that you claim he did, that he would have continued to represent them throughout his career, which he did not. You can claim he was a racist all you want, and yet, all you have is his career actions for that particular constituency. The fact is, whether he was a racist or not is inconclusive. He was a politician, and a damn good one at that.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree with you Jedieb, segreation was wrong and evil, it wasn't much better than what the Nazis did, but they took a step further. Also Wallace was no innocent I have seen things about the riots and how they used water hoses on them, people were killed for doing hardly anything. And then there were the murders in Mississippi, people in power, the mayor, the Sherieff, and several others, were involved in the killings of those civil rights workers so it shows how far the bigotry goes. Personally I don't think its right to just say oh the majority likes it so I am going to bow to their wishes, its the same as the people in Germany in the 1940's who said I was just following orders, that doesn't make one inexucesable for their actions.

[Jedieb]

He ran for President not once, but 4 times. Each time a vocal opponent of the civil rights movement. Hell, Nixon helped funnel money his way because he knew what an embarrasment he was to the Democratic party. He was the voice of the "white backlash" against the Civil Rights movement. His attitudes never wavered that far from those he espoused during his heyday. And what textbook describes everyone from Alabama with such simplistic and stereotypical terms as "barefoot" and Pregnant?" I've never seen it. ;)

As far as being a great politician, Hitler did a pretty damn good job of building a political base and gaining power. Wallace is nowhere near the demonic figure Adolf is, but I'm not going to blow sunshine up either of their skirts just because they were effective politicians. Bottom line, the policies Wallace supported THROUGHTOUT his career were repugnant to me.

[Sanis Prent]

Also Wallace was no innocent I have seen things about the riots and how they used water hoses on them, people were killed for doing hardly anything.

The incidents you vaguely allude to are the Birmingham riots, and Sherriff Bull Connor did not act under any accordance with Wallace whatsoever in that, and was later chastized for his brute force tactics. That, and nobody was even killed in that incident.


And then there were the murders in Mississippi, people in power, the mayor, the Sherieff, and several others, were involved in the killings of those civil rights workers so it shows how far the bigotry goes.

And this has to do with Wallace how?

Once again, I strongly urge you not to lump together the policies of segregation in a political sense with racial violence. You're making really dangerous and ignorant generalizations here, and as I've noted above, you can really paint an incorrect picture with brush strokes that wide.

It can be really easy to "think you know" about a situation, but unless you have lived here, and experienced it here, you really don't "know" anything about here.

I'm out of this thread. Experience != Book Knowledge.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I lived in the South for about 20 years and though it has been better now I have heard stories of lynchies etc, so I do know something. I don't care Segreation was evil and that is fact, our President said it for crying out loud. Those that supported to me supported the violence like the church bombing in Birmingham in the 60's that killed several young girls. People like Wallace using his hatemongering on TV and Radio encouraged these people into doing such acts. As far as Wallace himself, he may have changed his mind realized that he was wrong and asked God for forgivence, well if that is the case he might actually not go to Hell for what he did but I have no idea if he really was honest about his transformation

[Jedieb]

I have lived in the South for 10 years now. So like JMC, I have plenty of experience with southerners and the South. It seems to me that you're making just as many broad accusations as I am. I've repeatedly stated that not all southerners supported segregation or racism. While you're statements about "book knowledge" obviously imply some kind of systemic bashing of the South by the educational system. Like JMC said, our own conservative Republican President denounced segregation and its policies as evil. So has he been brain washed by all of his fancy book learnin'?

There's no practical or ethical defense for segregation. It was an evil institution that fostered racial intolerance and violence. The two went hand in hand. They always did and they always will.