You are not taking into consideration the former DIXIECRATS such as Jesse Helms and STROM THURMOND and the like.. who switched over to the REPUBLICAN PARTY. When they were DIXIECRATS, they DID NOT VOTE for the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. Check out your figures with respect to SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS vs. NORTHERN.

Dixiecrats

well, I think based on pure numbers you might be right. But as a % of their populations blacks and hispanics have three times as many abortions as whites. Abortions have hit the AA community especially hard.
But again, since blacks only account for 12% of the US population, I would agree that most abortions are not performed on blacks/hispanics.

Convenience IS the number one reason for abortion. Sad but true.

This is from Guttmacher



This is from African American Outreach(Dr. Alveda King...Niece of MLK).

then there is this..

http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions

But they were DEMOCRATS when they rejected the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor is it true that there was some mass exodus of southern democrats in the 60s. There was not. The democrats were a majority down here until the 90's. Even so, while one can transfer party affiliation, he can't transfer history. That ugly history belongs to the democrats.

There were a lot of interesting points made on this thread, but I think some clarification is necessary about the history of democrats and civil rights. MEDC is mostly right in his statement. I hate getting into politics here and try to avoid it but I think some points need to be clarified about the history of civil rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have never been passed if it HAD NOT BEEN for Republicans and the leadership of Senator Everett Dirksen [R]. [Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower] Republicans do not claim they were "solely responsible," only that it would not have passed without their help and support. That is a true fact. It is true, also, that historically democrats were against any civil rights for blacks.

On every major civil rights vote [26] from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era, Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced into the senate, senate democrats organized a filibuster, with Sen Richard Russell leading the charge, a man who often swore he would never agree to the "amalgamation of the races." Among the organizers were several prominent and well known democrats including former Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd, so called "conscience of the democrats" and revered member TODAY, J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton. Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Sam Ervin and Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore.

In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their "overwhelming majority." He did not offer any praise to his own Democrat Party, and rightfully so.

It is only fitting that the democrats initiated the Civil rights Act since it was THEY whom blacks needed protection FROM. It was democrats who LYNCHED blacks and did everything in their power to deny them civil rights. Democrats fought and died defending slavery in the Civil War, founded and peopled the KU KLUX KLAN, [my ancestor, General Nathan Bedford Forrest , a democrat, was the first Grand Wizard] legislated Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and numerous other repressive laws at the state and FEDERAL level.

And lets not forget the most notorious opponents of school integration, Orval Faubus [Governor of Arkansas], George Wallace, [Governor of Alabama] and Lester Maddox, Governer of Georgia, ALL DEMOCRATS.

This was not a few guys in the party who were racist, but institutional racism. For example, the KU KLUX KLAN hosted the Democrat National Convention in NEW YORK in 1924; it was cleverly called the "KLAN BAKE." This was followed by democrat sponsored Klan Rally in New Jersey in the same year.

This was not some "southern" thing as dems attempt to portray; nor did the entire democrat party leave and move to the Republican party in the 60's; that is ludicrous. [none of the dem senators mentioned above left the party] If any racist democrat transferred his party affiliation, he obviously could not transfer his HISTORY and that history remains with the democrats. Besides, the democrats had a clear majority in the south until the 90's. The democrats were a NATIONAL PARTY then as they are a national party today. Their history belongs to them and no one else. The democrat party WAS historically the party of white supremacy.

So yes it is true that the democrats initiated civil rights protection in 1964, but it also true that they did so with the help of Republicans and had been historically against it up until that time. It is also true that the democrats have a horrendous past that they cannot and should not pretend away.

When I was in elementary school, they began busing for integration purposes in my city where we had sit ins and peaceful demonstrations. When I was in college, there were riots in the Northeast over forced integration. On NPR the other day, "All Things Considered", there was a feature over racism.

All Americans Share Complex Racial Past

I agree. That's what I was saying in reference to those statistics...but the DIXIECRATS were a segment of the Democratic party..they became Republicans upon no longer being accepted and tolerated by the party.

Mel, I think you are speaking of the DIXIECRATS.

p.s. as a lifelong democrat,[until recently] raised by democrat activists, descendant of Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest, it gives me no pleasure to recount that ugly past, but the truth is the truth. And the truth will set you free. That is also my family's history and it can't be blameshifted on anyone else. To do so is just as evil as racism, IMO.

I see what you are saying, Mel...

But coming from a family of Southern Democrats, they always made that distinction as if the Dixiecrats were a different species. My grandparents were great supporters of FDR whom they felt was a LIFESAVER for them and their cohorts during the Depression..

I probably need to back out of this discussion, though..cause I'm mostly LEARNING as WE SPEAK..I don't know that much about POLITICS...

I don't know anybody in my family history except my GREAT-GRANDFATHER who supported a Republican..but the Republican HE LIKED was ABRAHAM LINCOLN... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

No they didn't. None of the democrat senators I mentioned above left. They died democrats. Former Klan Kleagle, democrat Robert Byrd, still alive, is an honored member of the democrat party today. He is called the "conscience" of the democrat party. The democrats in the south held a majority until the 90s.

Even so, a party cannot transfer its history. That history belongs to democrats, not Republicans.

OK..YUCK...

No offense, Mel..but I don't LIKE any of the REPUBLICANS that have been in office during my adulthood..

Ever since he's been President, I can barely look or listen to Bush...

Well, I have only voted for one Republican in my life and I sure don't like what I see this year. But I could never vote for a democrat again. I do like Bush, though.

Bush stepped into a hornets nest with 9/11/ And then Iraq ... which people can blame him all they want, but he was working off the same info the democrats thought was accurate. He gets a raw deal by the media and frankly, when much of what he has done is proven correct, his presidency will be looked at favorably.

Never in the history of our country has a president faced what he did. An attack on American soil by a faceless enemy. So rather than wait, he took action....some of it wrong and some of it very right. But I guarantee that Iraq will be 1000 times worse if we just pull out as some politicians are suggesting.

I've always voted my conscience...not a party ticket. I am a registered independent...I have previously been a dem and rep.

I am hoping for a third party that truly addresses the needs of our country.

I'm sitting this election out--the first time, I think, since I was old enough to vote and I just turned 60, so it's a long time. Politicians are starting to remind me of that joke I've heard about men..."They're all alike. They just have different faces so you can tell them apart." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

If I had to look to Washington DC to give me hope, I'd give up on hope, and that goes for the whole lot of them, too!

t&l

One word... KATRINA

That's not quite 40 years ago. I don't know if police dogs were used but guns were.

Yes, they were used on the rescuers who tried to RESCUE them. Those idiots were shooting at rescue helicopters. Your comparison to folks who lynched blacks and hosed them down is not only senseless, but a mean-spirited, hateful insult to the good men and women who went in there and risked their lives rescuing those people. ugh..

Mel, it shocks me the way some of the people on this board think and speak! It is an outrage.

OVERALL, this BOARD is filled with ANGELS!!

I moreso am AMAZED that, out of the goodness of their hearts, in a LOVING SPIRIT, strangers will take their time and unselfishly GIVE to others who are in the midst of overwhelming EMOTIONAL PAIN.

That's what THIS BOARD is about...

*********edit*******

And yes, the fine people in the parish across the river from New Orleans DID stop the folks from walking across the bridge with guns.

And Yes, there was SOME shooting at helicopters. But not by people being rescued. But by people who were stealing and looting generally.


********EDIT*********

LG

PS:
Mel, just so I am clear about your reference to Nathan Bedford Forrest as a distant relative? Since he is was the first grand wizard of the KKK, I hope it is in shame that you cite that reference. It wasn't clear to me from your post. And I simply want to sure, we all have things in the woodpile of our histories to be disappointed about. Can't change it. It's just there.