You are really wrong on this. The party flip is not a myth. Republicans were the 'liberal' party until early in the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt was a famous progressive. As was Lincoln, obviously.
The Southern Democrats were pro-segregation starting with Andrew Johnson and only ending when Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Woodrow Wilson was the one who instituted racial segregation in the federal service, after T. Roosevelt had integrated it not long before. FDR was nowhere near the rabid segregationist that Wilson was, and he wanted to institute more racially advanced policies, but was blocked by the Southern Democrats. You should do some research of FDR - he was a patrician, and probably mildly racist, but definitely not a rabid segregationist (look up Executive Order 8802). Truman, his VP, integrated the military, over the protests of Southern Democrats (many of whom left the party to found the Dixiecrats).
Southern Democrats - there are too many to mention, but look up Jesse Helms, George Wallace, Fielding Wright, Robert Byrd, etc. And look up the Dixiecrat party - they specifically removed themselves from the Democrats over integration (which they opposed). When the Dixiecrat party couldn't get enough traction, they joined the Republicans (starting with Nixon, and his famous 'Southern Strategy').
This is probably the only one of your post replies that actually made me think about how to respond, mostly because you're categorically incorrect.
The "Party Flip" you keep referencing simply didn't happen. That's what we call a conspiracy. Why? It's quite simple:
1. Strom Thurmond and Helms were the ONLY Democrats that flipped to the Republican party that participated in the senate's fight against segregation that I can find evidence of. All of the others, such as Robert Byrd, Wallace etc. never flipped during their lifetimes, nor were they thrown out. Wikipedia, of all things, is right here. Do your research, please. I'm not going to argue with someone who denies outright facts.
2.
Jesse Owens was not invited to the White House. He was an Olympic Gold Medalist, and embarassed the National Socialists in their own country. That article also mentions how FDR appointed a former KKK member to the SCOTUS.
3. Dixiecrats was a faction of the Democratic party, never an actual party or splinter of it. You need to re-read history. I'm not going to argue facts.
Nixon changed his views on Civil Rights after he was elected, that's true. But it's more nuanced than you're letting on.
For one, Republicans have always been economically conservative, even under Theodore Roosevelt. They opposed many subsidies and expansions of government in areas where it didn't need to be. Coolidge continued this, as he is famous for vetoing dozens of bills pushed across his desk.
I also got this for you to read.
Less than a decade after Nixon's supposed Southern Strategy,
Jimmy Carter won the election, including most of the South. Look up Clinton's elections too. Other than the 1980s, 8 years of which were under the enduringly popular Ronald Reagan, who won almost every state in his second run, you can't deny facts.
I actually think people are hiding behind the 'statute of limitations'. This means that the racists essentially got away with it - they repressed people for 100 years without consequence.
And we do go after old people found to have committed genocide (Nazis even today), or Southerners found to have killed civil rights workers. This literally happens all the time.
Prosecuting old people and throwing them into prisons where they'll surely die in no time flat is not my idea of justice. Same with National Socialists who escaped to the US. What good is putting a 90+ year old man in a prison cell where he's going to die inevitably from maltreatment at the hands of prison guards. Many of these people are in nursing homes or assisted living. It's not humane, regardless of their actions. I'm not the type to put geriatric commies behind bars either. I'd rather just expose them for their crimes and have society shun them.
Actually, under US law, if your father was found culpable for murder, and there was a subsequent claim against his estate, then, yes, the inheritance could be confiscated.
Nope. Not in all circumstances. They can certainly try, but if the property was disbursed and held beyond the SoL that's not going to happen.
In any case, sins of the father. Your morality is not morality to me.
The blacks were effectively taxed for 100 years, and prevented from accruing capital. So they had to pay the financial cost. And we just leave it at that, I guess - 'sorry your farms and businesses were burned'; 'sorry we kept you out of the professions'; 'best of luck rebuilding from scratch again!'.
The people involved are gone. What are you going on about? there's no separating the government's bank account from every citizen. If you make them pay, it's the taxpayers footing the bill. You must really think money grows on trees.
There is a big difference here. After 1 generation, an Irish person can effectively disappear into the larger white population. The Southern race statutes specifically said that 'a single drop of black blood' was enough to keep someone categorized as 'black', and therefore subject to segregation laws. This was not that long ago - I was a kid when SCOTUS overturned Loving v. Virginia.
Look, I am all for ignoring race, but the Southerners wouldn't let it happen, and as a result, the black middle class was effectively prevented from existing for almost 100 years. Often, literally, by fire and terror. Are we just going to ignore that fact? I don't see how that is moral.
That's wrong. You may not be able to see the physical, cultural and lingual differences between different groups of people, but history doesn't lie. It's easy to pick out people's ethnicity based on physical appearance oftentimes. So someone familiar with the features, accents or cultural quirks of the Irish, something that someone in the 20th century certainly could, then it doesn't matter how many generations removed. You certainly have noticed that lower class Black people have a specific slang accent they use. The same is among different ethnic Europeans. Italian-Americans have their own dialectal differences from others for instance.
Also, wow. Total boomer. That makes perfect sense why you hold the views you do.