On MLK and LBJ Hillary Clinton was Right
Earl Ofari Hutchinson explains at the Huffington Post that Hillary Clinton was exactly right when she said that even Martin Luther King Jr. needed a president who was sympathetic to his cause in order to succeed. Hillary argued, basically, that without LBJ it would have taken the Civil Rights Movement much longer to end segregation and to finally establish full racial equality.
As Hutchinson explains, she’s right about that. That’s not a secret. Everyone with a bit of knowledge about this period in US history understands it’s true. What made the Civil Rights movement is that blacks and whites joined forces and demanded full equality. Without whites it wouldn’t have happened, at least not back then. And without LBJ’s leadership on this issue specifically it wouldn’t have happened for years either.
Read Hutchinson’s post. It’s a good, interesting read.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Blacks would have won their civil rights with or without LBJ. A country cannot deny a group of people their god-given rights forever. If LBJ did not pass the voting rights act, the civil rights movement would have become less patient with white resistance and more forceful. Every group of people has a right to pick up arms and defend themselves when they are being oppressed. There would have been less marches and more shooting. Then white America would have been faced with a choice: either give black Americans their rights, or slaughter black Americans for defending themselves, with the whole world watching. America could not continue to pretend to be the "land of the free" if they were to choose the latter. Their hands were tied. Black people were not going to just go away and let it go.
Besides, statistically, VERY FEW white people "joined hands" with black people to fight for civil rights. The vast majority of white people either did absolutely nothing to change things, or supported segregation by voting for pro-segregationist governors. If it hadn’t been for white apathy and resistance, it would not have taken America an embarrassing 100 years (after the formal end of slavery) for the white controlled federal and state governments to finally fully recognize black citizens as equals. Hillary’s perspective on history is a little "white-washed" to say the least.
As an African American that grew up in the south, on a plantation, and experenced the civil rights movement first hand, I must agree with Hilliary.
Dr Martin Luther King Jr. could not and did not end the sergregation and racial inequality along. It took us Blacks people, White people, Red people, Brown people, LBJ and a nation of people that understood our struggles that caused the civil rights movement to susceed.
I truly believe that if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was still alive he would have said the same.
Sullivan agrees, but argues that the Clinton’s are not at all like LBJ.
So basically, it is to F.W. De Klerk whom we should credit the abolishment of apartheid — not Nelson Mandela.
balancedhistory,
a lot of things had happened in that 100 years since the end of slavery to build up to that point.
the radical reconstruction following the war was too coercive and failed, leading to a backlash in the south. there needed to be a political justification for laws like the civil rights act and other government decisions like desegregation, which hadn’t been done before because of people’s views of how government operated.
the radical reconstruction had involved a lot of federal power that was created during the civil war, and the backlash a retreat from imposing federal power. A lot of the laws and directives in the civil rights movement were a return to accepting federal power. A lot of that we’re weening off of again today, with renewed arguments for states rights and attacks on judicial activism.
i’m not saying the civil rights acts were wrong (as I dont think they were), but to be perfectly balanced, honestly, the history of this country’s laws on equal protection are inseparably tied to the history of the country’s views on government imposing power.
NEWS FLASH ! (SPREAD THE WORD)
Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964
While a Republican and "Goldwater Girl"
A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement.
In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her ‘civil rights experience’ during every speech given to black audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma’s First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963.
The fact is, in 1963, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes "…how then could she be a ‘Goldwater Girl’ in the next year’s presidential election?" He continues, "…she described herself in her memoirs as ‘an active Young Republican’ and ‘a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.’
Novak adds, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the histo ric voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton’s temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy."
To Read Novak’s original article simply Google ‘ Hillary, King, Goldwater ‘. His article is everywhere. Then SHARE THE TRUTH. We’ve had a liar in office long enough. NO MORE !!!!!