 |
||||||||
|
1/07/2003 12:05:00 AM | Timothy The California GOP's views on race In 1999, an essay published in the official California State Republican Party newsletter claimed that we would have been better off had the South won the Civil War. The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Bill Black, the Vice Chairman of the California State Repulican party, allowed the article to be published and is running into trouble as he seeks the top spot in the California party. Black has now apologized and claimed that he does not share the article's sentiments. Despite claims by Republicans that Trent Lott views on segregation are unique, there really has not been an outcry against this common sentiment about the Civil War (oh, sorry, the war of northern aggression). And we should not think this view is confined to the South or California: when I moved to Wisconsin, I was a little taken a back to see confederate flags saying "If the south had won, we would have had it made" and students who shared these views arguing them in U.S. history class. Lott has been roundly condemned by many for claiming that America would be better off had segretation prevailed. Maybe the California GOP has no problem with having someone who merely let this be published in an official GOP newsletter lead their party. But maybe that type of toleration of bigotry and backwards views is the problem. Those who hold these views make up an important part of the Republican party, and their presence is tolerated to the extent their views can be published in official state party literature If we rightly condemn those who (still!) claim it was justified for states to claim the right to protect segregation, shouldn't we condemn those who used states' right to protect slavery? And what does the White House say? It's a state matter. Here's part of the article from the San Francisco Chronicle: A 1999 newsletter published by a man looking to lead California's Republican Party included an essay suggesting the United States would be a better place if the South had won the Civil War. The piece, by William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation, was included in a GOP e-mail newsletter published by Bill Back of Yuba County, who's currently vice chairman of the state Republican Party. Back, who has fought efforts to wrest the state party from its strongly conservative leadership, denied that Lind's piece represents his views. "Upon reflection, I should have been more sensitive regarding issues raised in this piece and not included it in the e-mail," Back said in a statement Saturday. "I regret any pain and offense taken by readers." The report is another embarrassment both for California Republicans and for a national party still reeling from the outcry over Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott's widely quoted nostalgia for a time before civil rights moved to the political forefront. The blowup over the newsletter is especially disheartening for Republicans looking to make inroads among California's growing number of minority voters, a group that now heavily backs Democrats. The article was one of many published in the twice-monthly newsletter, Back said, which included a variety of political viewpoints. Lind's piece suggested that it was Reconstruction, not slavery, that really damaged race relations in the country and that economics eventually would have eliminated slavery, even without a war. "It's not hard to believe that history might have taken a better turn," if the South had won the Civil War, the piece said.. If the South were a separate country, it continued, "at least part of North America would still stand for Western culture, Christianity and an appreciation of the differences between ladies and gentlemen." Shannon Reeves, a black Oakland resident who is secretary of the state's Republican Party, was reportedly incensed over reports about the newsletter, telling friends he was outraged it was distributed as an official Republican document. Copies of the newsletter began circulating among California Republicans earlier this week and even reached the White House. A spokeswoman for President Bush declined to comment on the controversy, calling the dispute -- and the upcoming party elections -- a California matter. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.