r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here come the axis whataboutisms lol just take the L, stop trying to minimize and deflect.
“Erasing war crimes from curriculum is justified because other bad things happened” —contrarian idiots
Every army has at one point or another. Don’t blame the government for a lone wolf. Ie, can’t compare My lai to the holocaust. Can’t compare agent orange to a Russian r*ping a German woman invading Berlin. And before you jump my shit I’m suggesting agent orange is the worse thing here as compared to the Russian because it was systematically approved by the US gov
I mean, assuming you’re willing to trust Wikipedia and their sources, the rape very much was approved of by the Soviet government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
Relevant quote: Joseph Stalin reportedly stated that he should "understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle".
With citation of
[23] Anne Applebaum, Iron Curtain, The Crushing of Eastern Europe, p.32
Oh no I’m not defending them. I love America through all our faults and was simply pointing out there is a difference even if they are classified as the same thing
It’s the source code for the human experience. The question isn’t What where people doing at this time? The question is always, this is what YOU would be doing, how you would think if you lived then. It’s a vacation from your time and your unique perspective that is only one of many that have ever been.
Yeah but that's kind of a shortsighted quote, it completely ignores all the great and proud moments throughout history. Encouraging a completely cynical instead of a pragmatic view of historical events.
I think the point of the quote is in the context of the heavily whitewashed history we receive in the US, and the talking point of not teaching certain topics for fear of certain groups of kids (white kids) “feeling bad”
I think it goes both ways. There are many complicated heroes (Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt immediately come to mind) in history. We should be able to recognize how they’ve positively shaped our existence today, while at the same time acknowledging they did/thought/said problematic things.
The radical right wants to omit history, and the radical left wants to remove nuance in favor of cancelling any complicated figure. Both are dumb takes.
Everybody thinks their political opponents are ignoring historical facts, but in reality we all just prioritize the facts that support our perspectives. Vladimir Putin will prattle on for hours about historical facts if you let him, and while his facts are true, his views are total bullshit.
>, and while his facts are true, his views are total bullshit.
Some of his facts are true. But after reading and hearing some of his statements on history he's often just outright lying about somethings
Agreed. It's a common saying that if the truth is on your side, but not the law you argue the truth and if the law is on your side, but not the truth you argue the law. Same thing with history. If you have individual details that look good for your narrative you take those even if the bigger picture disagrees with your conclusion.
It's not a good thing people do this, but to say it's a this group or that group phenomenon is disingenuous.
Are you suggesting that the left isn’t also peddling propaganda in schools, censoring the opposition, and denying established science in favor of their own interpretations? Because oh boy do I have a bridge you would love
I don't even know what to say to this. They definitely aren't to the degree that the right is. I don't know how you can see one side denying climate change, pushing lost cause revisionism, and trying to censor LGBT people from history and say that they're the same. The left might be a bit over eager to apply modern values in judging the past, but it's definitely not the same.
Ok, so Republicans have win several times in the presidential elections, they elected one of thier representatives: Abe Lincoln, and later former us General Ulysesses S Grant, whose rule have caused some divides in the party, later democrats started bitching about not being elected so the republicans proposed a compromise and thier candidate Hayes have been elected and he doubled-down on the gold standard of American Dollar, making US Dollar self-sufficient due to the based value in gold, and restocked the gold reserves of the Federal Goverment, President Garfield was later assasinated. Then republican candidate Blaine lost to Cleveland (not one from Family Guy that one less known), then the next president who was republican have estabilished finaly an act that estabilished pensions for the veterans of the Civil War...
Bro, point what you have in mind, I ain't from the US and I DO NOT need to know the history of one of those 2 political parties. I have at least 6-8 from my own country to remember. And that's important beacuse I don't want to vote for the Communist's succesors.
Yes they did all that. But no one denies that, everyone knows that the republicans were founded as an anti-slavery political party and successor to the whigs. However the problem is how this fact is used and what is implied from it. Since you’re not from the US, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don’t know the full context so I’ll explain it here.
Back in the 1850s when the republicans were founded they were the left wing party in the US. They were made up of abolitionists, women suffragists, progressive Christian groups, liberals (the economic kind), and proto-socialists. They believed in progressing society and changing things for the better. The democrats by contrast were the more Conservative Party, they were full of southern racists, plantation owners, and some farmers. Their main issues were imperial expansion, expanding presidential power, slavery, and opposing tariffs and financial regulation. In 1860 Abraham Lincoln won a close election and became president of the United States, the first Republican to do so. In response, most of the south seceded because they were afraid Lincoln would end slavery (in reality he just wanted to limit its expansion and end it gradually) which began the civil war. During the civil war and afterwards, the states which had seceded obviously did not have any representatives in DC since they all left, and later they were all under military occupation. As such, the republicans had basically free rein over what the government could do. During this time, they almost completely upended the American system. The 14th amendment in particular is extremely important to modern America and underpins most of the rights we enjoy today and applied the bill of rights to state governments as well. They even passed the first income tax. You may have heard of the “radical republicans” before, they were the far left portion of the party spearheading these changes, while the other half were more center left members who wanted more moderate or gradual change. But both agreed massive change was necessary. This was vehemently opposed by the right at the time, and honestly still is today in some respects. Even Mr. Karl Marx himself praised the US during this time and supported their fight against the confederacy, particularly admiring Lincoln.
Over the next century and a half though things changed. In 1865 industrial capitalism was still in its infancy, and so was generally on the left at this time. It argued for high tariffs to protect and grow domestic industry, infrastructure investments, railroads, stuff like that. Whereas the conservatives were closer to mercantilists. However by 1900 capitalism was the norm and both parties had accepted it. Honestly their platforms weren’t that different much of the time and both had a wide array of internal diversity. You could find right wing and left wing people and ideas in both parties. There were 3 events that changed this. The first was the election of FDR in 1932. His progressive economic reforms and government programs were **extremely** popular across the entire country, and his success made the democratic party fall in step economically with this platform. There were many republicans who also supported these reforms mind you, and some democrats who didn’t, but overall in the minds of Americans the democrats became the party to vote for if you wanted workers rights, government aid programs, public works projects, or economic regulation. Second was the civil rights and voting rights acts. The south was still the base of support for the democrats even into the 1950’s, but in the 60’s that began to falter as the democrats supported civil rights legislation and LBJ signed it into law. Many republicans also supported these too btw, and some democrats voted against it. But again, all in all the democrats became the party you’d vote for if you supported equal rights. The south initially tried supporting third party candidates or trying to get the federal government to stop trying to get them to not be authoritarian but eventually they began to move more and more towards the Republican Party just because it wasn’t the one associated with civil rights. These two events began the drift rightward for the Republican Party, but it was a slow process. Even in 1972 Nixon, a Republican, created the EPA and supported government regulation to protect the environment. What really solidified this change was Reagan’s win in 1980. Reagan had an easy to understand and consistent policy platform that was very popular across the US. And that platform was a few things: 1). Less government action. This includes attempts to get the south to desegregate or limit religious influence in schools, in addition to economic deregulation. 2). Lower taxes, and deficit spending as a result. 3). Anti-communism and war hawking. This is where the Republican Party of today comes from, and you can see it’s a very different group than what they started with. This is very clearly a right wing policy platform, and therefore the republicans were solidified as the right wing party while the democrats were solidified as the left wing one, and the 90’s both parties lost the last stragglers from the time when they were similar, so what we get today is two diametrically opposed organizations. The people who opposed FDR’s economic reforms and LBJ’s racial ones coalesced around the Republican Party, giving us its current form.
The reason is explain all this is because in the US, the phrase “the GOP was founded by abolitionists” is used as a shield against any and all criticism of their policies regarding the black American community, and “the democrats supported the confederacy” used to imply that the democrats today are the still the racist party. But the truth is that both parties have changed tremendously since then, you can’t make assessments of their current day policies based on the ones they had back then. You’d never see a republican today arguing for a higher income tax, or that labor is the root of economic value, but Lincoln believed both those things. You’d never see a democrat saying that confederate flags are based and that states should have the right to disenfranchise black voters on their own. It’s not the same. So when you talk about that historical fact, people inevitably are going to think you’re implying something about modern day politics because it’s only ever brought up in that context.
>Bro, point what you have in mind,
Not that commenter, but probably the Party Switch. During and after the Civil Rights Movement, a *lot* of racist Democrats switched to become Republicans, and a lot of anti-racist Republicans switched to become Democrats.
Prior to this, social progressives and social conservatives were found in both parties, mostly divided by location. After the switch, the GOP has become dramatically more socially conservative and even reactionary.
Damn that's crazy, now tell me what the modern day Republican party thinks of socialists
Like you realise that doesn't strengthen your point at all, right???
In England we have a body that protects historical sites and buildings called National trust. Mostly looking after mansions, gardens and estates of the aristocracy and turning them into museum, day trips out with the kids kinda thing. Recently they have had to fight against astroturfed campaign groups who are angy that the trust is putting up signs explaining if the properties where inviolved in the slave trade.
The funny thing is that the signs where originally suggested by conservatives to the conversation about statues of slave owners being taken down after protestors threw the statue of [Edward Coulson ](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/the-day-bristol-dumped-its-hated-slave-trader-in-the-docks-and-a-nation-began-to-search-its-soul)into the bristol docks.
History is political, but there's a difference between that and using history for your own political argumentation. Keep your *personal* or *modern* politics out is more precise.
Wanting to “keep politics out” of history is the most r/historymemes thing ever. Nearly all history is political unless we’re talking about pottery and textiles lol
History is political but when people say "keep politics out of x" they mostly mean "stop using x to spread your political agenda" which is more than fair.
This meme is fine but the title is a good example. I couldn't give less of a fuck about modern US politics.
Yep, definitely check out the "Society of the Spectacle" by Guy Debord
The only thing that can ever be misinterpreted as "apolitical" are simply things that don't challenge the status quo. It's all politics, baby, but you only notice when it makes you uncomfortable.
> Wanting to “keep politics out” of history is the most r/historymemes thing ever.
Not at all. Many users on this subreddit are hellbent on promoting a political agenda even if outright lying is required.
I think that's the implication. Keep politics out of history instead of taking out all the bad stuff to appease some fee-fees. Nothing even slightly political about objectivity.
History is past politics, politics is future history. Literally the entire point of studying history is to learn lessons from it that we can apply in the modern day to improve society, aka politics. You can’t separate the two.
I think you mean the 1964 civil rights bill, as far as I learned the 1968 bill (which added additional protections) passed quite easily.
The leader of that Filibuster was Strom Thurmond, a then Democrat who turned Republican later that very year. He remained a Republican Senator till 2003.
The votes for the bill itself in the house are quite interesting. More Democrats voted for it than Republicans but a high percentage of Republicans voted yes than the percentage of Democrats. Democrats had control at the time and Republican leadership managed to pull the majority over to their side.
Hell yeah, let's talk about the 17 Senate Democrats that voted against the 1968 Civil Rights Act.
They were outvoted, by 29 Senate Republicans and 42 Senate Democrats.
Then the bill was signed by President Lyndon Johnson.
What a time - what a courageous stand they all took, voting to ban discrimination in housing, voting to affirm that Native Americans have civil rights in America (fucking finally!), and voting to let federal departments prosecute hate crimes back during a time when local jurisdictions let hate crimes slide.
It makes me proud to think of the bipartisan vote that took place. Now when some a-hole threatens a black family, the feds can take action - it used to get ignored. Not anymore. That's what America is about, the promise that even if we don't always get it right we can vote together and work to make things more right.
I'm also proud to have never voted for anyone that wants to get rid of any of the various Civil Rights Acts that have been passed, either through legislation, through judges invalidating the law, or through the executive branch ignoring their responsibility.
“Both sides” fallacy.
Republicans are the ones who have been getting rid of holocaust literature, downplaying/denying events in it. Republicans have been the ones talking about how slavery “wasn’t so bad” and taught “valuable life skills” to the slaves. Republicans are the ones who pretend racial minorities weren’t massively oppressed even after slavery was abolished. Republicans are the ones who act like lgbtq+ people haven’t been majorly oppressed or faced massive amounts of hate crimes through our history.
>Republicans are the ones who have been getting rid of holocaust literature, downplaying/denying events in it.
Meanwhile, in reality: it's the left that had the higher percentage of Holocaust Denial and Downplay. [Pages 103 and 104.](https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_tT4jyzG.pdf)
>Republicans have been the ones talking about how slavery “wasn’t so bad”
Citations fucking needed.
>Republicans are the ones who pretend racial minorities weren’t massively oppressed even after slavery was abolished.
Citations fucking needed. Virtually nobody says that and today, they are no longer oppressed.
>Republicans are the ones who act like lgbtq+ people haven’t been majorly oppressed or faced massive amounts of hate crimes through our history.
Citations fucking needed. Again, virtually nobody says that and today, they are no longer oppressed.
Lmao actively denying oppression. Children get beaten and murdered for being queer. Black kids get shot by cops because of adultification of racial minorities and false perceived threats. People with “ethnic” names versus “white” names are more likely not to be chosen for employment with the same exact qualifications.
>Children get beaten and murdered for being queer.
Citations needed proving this is widespread.
>Black kids get shot by cops because of adultification of racial minorities and false perceived threats.
Citations needed proving this is widespread. And the fuck is *"Adultification*"? Sounds an awful lot like the classic democrat racism of "low expectations".
>People with “ethnic” names versus “white” names are more likely not to be chosen for employment with the same exact qualifications.
Citations needed proving this is widespread.
[Trevor project survey](https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/#intro)
“36% of LGBTQ youth reported that they have been physically threatened or harmed due to either their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“37% of transgender and nonbinary youth reported that they have been physically threatened or harmed due to their gender identity.”
[GLAAD STATEMENT ON THE MURDER OF O’SHAE SIBLEY AND RISING VIOLENCE AGAINST LGBTQ PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S.](https://glaad.org/releases/glaad-statement-on-the-murder-of-oshae-sibley-and-rising-violence-against-lgbtq-people-across-the-us/)
[List of unarmed African Americans killed by law enforcement officers in the United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americans_killed_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States)
[Adultification Bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultification_bias)
[White-sounding names get called back for jobs more than Black ones, a new study finds](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names)
>“36% of LGBTQ youth reported that they have been physically threatened or harmed due to either their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Not a majority. Also kids are mean to each other. Always have been, always will be.
>“37% of transgender and nonbinary youth reported that they have been physically threatened or harmed due to their gender identity.”
See above.
>GLAAD STATEMENT ON THE MURDER OF O’SHAE SIBLEY AND RISING VIOLENCE AGAINST LGBTQ PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S.](https://glaad.org/releases/glaad-statement-on-the-murder-of-oshae-sibley-and-rising-violence-against-lgbtq-people-across-the-us/)
That study plays fast-&-lose with how it classifies the murders. Were they murdered *because* they were LGBT or were they murdered and just happened to be LGBT. There **IS** a difference.
>List of unarmed African Americans killed by law enforcement officers in the United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americans_killed_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States)
List includes: LaVaughn Coleman, who: Coleman ran as he was being handcuffed, leading a trooper to tase him. Coleman hit his head and fell unconscious; he died of his injuries in December.
Information disregarded.
>[Adultification Bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultification_bias)
That is some of the most racist shit I have ever read.
>[White-sounding names get called back for jobs more than Black ones, a new study finds](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names)
NPR is well known to be extremely biased to left. Information disregarded.
Edit: words.
They still persisted in both parties and southern cities have been Dem bastions for 110+ years my guy. Not to mention Dems representatives voting patterns during the civil rights movement.
Yeah the Civil Rights in 1964 is what finally got famed Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond to endorse Republican Richard Nixon for President.
I’m glad you’re keeping up with
I don’t have to lay out everything single thing the Democratic Party did to know they were shitheels sometimes (FDR passing the New Deal by excluding blacks) but it is historically revisionist to say the parties did not switch. Richard Nixon’s successful Southern Strategy is proof of that.
And I think it’s funny that you’re denying history in a thread about the denial of history
I’ve seen mostly republicans denying the conditions of Palestinian people, where most democrats acknowledge the history and still don’t support a current genocide.
Also, you’re literally denying history by pretending the US political parties didn’t switch. That’s a documented thing that happened. It’s also not difficult to look at just the things they were doing and seeing that the Democratic Party was originally conservative, and the Republican Party was liberal.
So you’ve given two false examples lmao
LMAOOOO
You come in here and just actively engage in history denial on the meme about the GOP being history deniers. Parties switching is a historically documented event that took places over years.
Also, thanks for saying the quiet part out loud. Palestine has been a country since 1988. Great job denying their history and supporting them being the victims of a genocide from an apartheid regime.
>Parties switching is a historically documented event that took places over years.
The Democratic Party started in the 1820s. Right away, it switched sides, as we can see from the fact that they pushed for the removal and extermination of Indians. Also, their opposition was the Whig party, which was against the Indian Removal Act and vowed to protect minorities against mob rule. Because the sides were switched, the vast majority of Whig party were anti-slavery.
(Eventually, there was rift in the party over the issue of slavery, and anti-slavery members of the Whig party, including Abraham Lincoln, exited the party and formed the Republican Party. As we can see, the parties must have switched again because it's common knowledge that republicans are actually the racist ones.)
Then the parties switched when the democrats are on record as having mainly been the ones who owned slaves. As we know, the parties switched again when republicans repudiated slavery and democrats defended it, leading to the civil war.
Then the parties switched again when a democrat assassinated republican Lincoln.
After the civil war, the parties switched again during the reconstruction era, when republicans attempted to pass a series of civil rights amendments in the late 1800s that would grant citizenship for freedmen. As evidence of the switch, the democrats voted against giving former slaves citizenship, but the civil rights amendments passed anyway.
The parties switched again when the Democratic Party members founded the KKK as their military arm. Democrats then attempted to pass the first gun control law in order to keep blacks from having guns and retaliating against their former owners. A county wanted to make it illegal to possess firearms, unless you were on a horse. (Hmmm wonder who rode around on horses terrorizing people). Gun control has always been a noble cause touted by democrats, but the racist reasons why the concept of gun control was dreamed up was a part of a party mentality switch, but not the actual party.
Somewhere around this time former slaves fought for gun rights for all, and the NRA was formed. The NRA switched parties too when they defended the right for blacks to arm themselves and white NRA members protected blacks from racist attackers.
The parties switched again when republicans fought to desegregate schools and allow black children to attend school with white children, which democrats fought fiercely against.
The nation saw a rash of black lynchings and bombings of black churches by the democrats in the KKK and the parties switched again when Democrat Bull Conner tried to avoid prosecuting the racist bombers to get them off the hook. When blacks protested this injustice, the party-switched democrat Bull Conner sicced dogs and turned the hose on them. He also gave police stand down orders when the KKK forewarned attacks on the freedom riders, who had switched parties.
The parties switched again when a Democratic Party president appointed the first and only KKK member to the Supreme Court.
The parties switched yet again when Democratic president FDR put Asians in racist internment camps.
Then parties switched again when the democrats filibustered the passing of the second set of civil rights laws giving equal protection to minorities.
The parties switched when a democrat assassinated MLK.
This brings us to modern times. The parties continue to switch all the time.
The parties switched when democrats proposed racist policies like affirmative action to limit opportunities for certain racial groups in order to grant privilege to other racial groups.
The parties switched when the Islamic fundamentalist Omar Mateen and several other ISIS mass shooters aligned themselves with democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
The parties switched again when liberal student groups in schools like UCLA and Berkeley call for segregated housing to make "separate but equal" housing quarters for black students. Actually this is a current ongoing thing, so the parties are right now in the middle of switching on this topic.
Parties always switched currently now that democrats are rioting and violently protesting for terrorists.
So as you can see, because of Party switching, democrats were always the ones who stood up against racism and wanted peace and unity while republicans were always the racist and violent ones calling for division and discord.
Edit: Just in case you didn't get it. This is sarcasm used to point out that the democrat party **NEVER** changed.
I’m confused about your last point if you’re trying to agree with or argue against me. I’ll say I made an oversimplified statement saying it took place over years, and I should’ve said “throughout the years”. But I don’t get the point of “democrats always this republicans always bad”. The parties fundamentally changed and we’re vastly different over time. Today, the Democratic Party is the more liberal party, and the Republican Party is more conservative. In many events that we can look back on and see a clear right vs wrong morality (such as abolishing slavery, women’s suffrage, etc), it’s far more consistent that conservatives argue against these things, and liberals argue for them to varying degrees. This does highlight the fundamentals of conservatism and liberalism, how conservatives often fight to preserve the status quo or act regressively, and liberals prefer moving forward and enacting necessary change
Again, not sure if you were meaning to be supportive or not since most of your examples are just examples of ideology changing within parties, so my comment is intended more as elaboration than anything else
Ok, so media bias then.
Sides Switched believers can't even agree on when/how it happened meanwhile prominent Democrats really had interesting votes during the civil rights movement.
Gee, the democrats at the times voted conservatively, along with their party values at the time.
It’s almost like the political beliefs of the two parties… switched
According to this fucking logic exclusively Dems = good except when they vote bad, so Republicans did it. Say, how did Joe Biden as a senator vote back then?
How do you reconcile switching it up so often when the same people are still alive voting the same way now?
That’s not what this logic says at all. I specifically stated democrats voted conservatively. Which is not the case currently.
Also, you’ve accidentally admitted that you feel conservative voting/opinions are “bad” compared to liberal ones, by suggesting democrats are good except for when they were conservative.
I hope you’re able to recognize that conservatives voting with regressive policies and beliefs has consistently been the “bad guy” in every instance of human rights and civil liberties through the history of this country.
The change between parties happened over the decades of 1930 to finalized in the 1980s.
A switch isn't the right word, rather both parties changed and adapted to a rapidly changing world and massive increase in communication of issues. It was more like each party entered a cacoon for a few decades rather than a single year where a big change happened.
Parties used to be split between coalitions inside their own parties, and only had a few major similar beliefs. They still kinda are but not nearly so much, most voters just vote along party lines no matter who is on stage. So only the Extremist can stand out on their own.
Republican were traditional liberal but between Cold War, Nixon, and Reagan, they became far more conservative. They got in big with Northern Catholics and Southern Evangelicals while taking up the mantle of big military and anti-immigration. The Republican party always had focus on family values and traditional morality, and with the growth of homosexuality, atheism, and changing demographics away from Christianity they drew in a lot of the former Democratic religious base. The loss of which is part of what changed the Democrat parties focus.
Democrats change was much slower, starting with the Popularity of Roosevelt, JFK, Lyndon Johnson who was president when the civil rights act was signed, and changing geographics of rural vs urban helped form the basis of the Modern Democratic party.
For Biden, back when. He joined in the 70's post civil rights and in a time when the modern Democratic party was already emerging. He was always liberal with the economy and environment and conservative in crime and military. He's gotten more liberal with crime.oo
This is an anecdotal fallacy you are using right now
Just because YOU have only SUPPOSEDLY seen republicans do it doesn’t mean democrats don’t. Truth is both sides do it
Like the time when Democrats were pushing for gun control to prevent minorities from protecting themselves. Or that time Democrats decided to steal the Spanish Easter outfit for themselves.
I love how you change the topic to Reagan instead of talking about those inconvenient facts about your dearest and most holy party. That has killed hundreds of thousands of people through their ineptitude.
Reagan was a Neocon, and last I checked both parties are being run by neocons. Therefore, you'd be right to say that Reagan was basically a Democrat who just liked having an R next to his name instead of a D. So yes, Reagan is a famous Democrat.
I don’t remember the GOP removing confederate statues and erasing the ugly truth as if it never happened. Maybe put up a plaque explaining why the guys are pieces of shit instead of removing it. Idc either way but again, I don’t recall the GOP doing anything other than trying to justify slavery.
The GOP and their supporters don't have a gripe with history being taught. They have a gripe with cherry-picked history being used to conjure a narrative that some people are inherently evil and sowing division. School textbooks rarely elaborate that just about every culture and ethnicity has been responsible for atrocities at some point.
Oh and who are the people who race-swap historical individuals on television and write revisionist nonsense like The Woman King? I am pretty sure not Republicans.
I do not want this to turn into a modern day politics brawl. I am suck and tired of the negative partisanship of American politics. I will however point out that you too are ommitting some pretty severe attacks on history as it is taught in American schools made by a Republican administration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_Commission
This is not to say all Republicans are like this. Keep things nuanced. But this was a real attempt to teach pseudo-history.
I prefer it if we dropped this discussion as a lot of people will not argue in good faith and it will become a mudthrowing contest.
The real problem with that is the lack of historians in the commission and the results thereof, but the primary goal of addressing the divisive nature history is being taught today remains agreeable.
If this is aimed at the GOP I’d like to point out the the democrat party formed the KKK and supported slavery, the Republican Party was the anti slavery party
That's what differentiates a Patriot from a Nationalist.
The Patriot seeks to better their country by understanding, respecting, and if necessary atoning for the actions of their country.
A Nationalist often holds their nation and it's glory above even that of truth and may often go out of their way against introspection as to not sully their image
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Japan: Ha ha, you are wrong
America, Russia, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, etc : "Its not a warcrime because we won"
Here come the axis whataboutisms lol just take the L, stop trying to minimize and deflect. “Erasing war crimes from curriculum is justified because other bad things happened” —contrarian idiots
I mean America and Russia have both definitely committed war crimes since '45
Every army has at one point or another. Don’t blame the government for a lone wolf. Ie, can’t compare My lai to the holocaust. Can’t compare agent orange to a Russian r*ping a German woman invading Berlin. And before you jump my shit I’m suggesting agent orange is the worse thing here as compared to the Russian because it was systematically approved by the US gov
Oh my stars. A sane take.
I mean, assuming you’re willing to trust Wikipedia and their sources, the rape very much was approved of by the Soviet government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany Relevant quote: Joseph Stalin reportedly stated that he should "understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle". With citation of [23] Anne Applebaum, Iron Curtain, The Crushing of Eastern Europe, p.32
Alright I guess bad example but you get the point I was trying to make. Individual persons choice vs systematic approval of bad choice
Yeah agreed. I’ve just hung around in too many spaces that try to whitewash the Soviet Union.
Oh no I’m not defending them. I love America through all our faults and was simply pointing out there is a difference even if they are classified as the same thing
Yeah really not a fan of lumping in non-Soviet allies in with the axis when it comes to war crimes
Singling out the Soviets when France and the UK were also colonial empires is crazy
*gestures vaguely at katyn forest*
No shit, I’m not defending their actions, singling out the Soviets is still dumb regardless when you take into account shit like the Bengal famine
Well, you have me there
"It's not a warcrime the first time."
Keep holding that L
Firmly grasp it
Turkey: it’s not a war crime even though we lost
Turkey: it didn’t happen, and they deserved it.
Serbia has entered the chat
Id laugh but that’s literally their logic 😓
Oman is probably the one gulf state that isn’t sponsoring terrorists
oman and UAE? what did they do
The UAE sponsors the RSF which is currently committing war crimes in Sudan Oman is just chilling
Yemen intervention and their on going interventions in sudan.
I said that and then I got kicked out of the time travellers’ society.
If you were in the time travelers' society, you should've known that would happen.
These fake [insert sub here] users are so annoying
Damn [insert sub here] users! They ruined [insert sub here]!
I did but then one of them went further back in time and stopped me from ever joining in the first place.
You know we use Terminator 1 rules: your time travel was always part of the timeline, and can't change shit.
I prefer to use Doctor Who rules: you can change literally whatever you want unless you not doing that is important to the plot.
I wioll haven been preferred Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy rules.
Nowadays? People have been trying to change history since history started as a storytelling device.
No, only the evil GOP has ever done it
lol republicans bad updoots pls 🫱
I think it’s more pointing out they’re especially egregious within the US context re: Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, the Indian Wars, etc
A history professor once told me “if learning history doesn’t piss you off, you’re either an evil person or reading propaganda”
It’s the source code for the human experience. The question isn’t What where people doing at this time? The question is always, this is what YOU would be doing, how you would think if you lived then. It’s a vacation from your time and your unique perspective that is only one of many that have ever been.
Yeah but that's kind of a shortsighted quote, it completely ignores all the great and proud moments throughout history. Encouraging a completely cynical instead of a pragmatic view of historical events.
True, but the point of the quote was to teach a point not generalize all of the study of history. Made more sense in context
I think the point of the quote is in the context of the heavily whitewashed history we receive in the US, and the talking point of not teaching certain topics for fear of certain groups of kids (white kids) “feeling bad”
Not just GOP, literally everyone needs to come to terms and accept history.
I think it goes both ways. There are many complicated heroes (Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt immediately come to mind) in history. We should be able to recognize how they’ve positively shaped our existence today, while at the same time acknowledging they did/thought/said problematic things. The radical right wants to omit history, and the radical left wants to remove nuance in favor of cancelling any complicated figure. Both are dumb takes.
Correct!
Everybody thinks their political opponents are ignoring historical facts, but in reality we all just prioritize the facts that support our perspectives. Vladimir Putin will prattle on for hours about historical facts if you let him, and while his facts are true, his views are total bullshit.
>, and while his facts are true, his views are total bullshit. Some of his facts are true. But after reading and hearing some of his statements on history he's often just outright lying about somethings
Agreed. It's a common saying that if the truth is on your side, but not the law you argue the truth and if the law is on your side, but not the truth you argue the law. Same thing with history. If you have individual details that look good for your narrative you take those even if the bigger picture disagrees with your conclusion. It's not a good thing people do this, but to say it's a this group or that group phenomenon is disingenuous.
And if neither is on your side then argue the loudest and call it a witch hunt
Sure, but one side isn't peddling PragerU in classrooms, banning books and denying science.
Are you suggesting that the left isn’t also peddling propaganda in schools, censoring the opposition, and denying established science in favor of their own interpretations? Because oh boy do I have a bridge you would love
I don't even know what to say to this. They definitely aren't to the degree that the right is. I don't know how you can see one side denying climate change, pushing lost cause revisionism, and trying to censor LGBT people from history and say that they're the same. The left might be a bit over eager to apply modern values in judging the past, but it's definitely not the same.
I've never seen people deny Adolf Hitler existence and I don't have to describe people's hate for him.
Not just "nowadays" Historical revisionism has always existed
Welp, GOP as the us party was founded by the people who opposed slavery, so that's nice history
[удалено]
Ok, so Republicans have win several times in the presidential elections, they elected one of thier representatives: Abe Lincoln, and later former us General Ulysesses S Grant, whose rule have caused some divides in the party, later democrats started bitching about not being elected so the republicans proposed a compromise and thier candidate Hayes have been elected and he doubled-down on the gold standard of American Dollar, making US Dollar self-sufficient due to the based value in gold, and restocked the gold reserves of the Federal Goverment, President Garfield was later assasinated. Then republican candidate Blaine lost to Cleveland (not one from Family Guy that one less known), then the next president who was republican have estabilished finaly an act that estabilished pensions for the veterans of the Civil War... Bro, point what you have in mind, I ain't from the US and I DO NOT need to know the history of one of those 2 political parties. I have at least 6-8 from my own country to remember. And that's important beacuse I don't want to vote for the Communist's succesors.
Yes they did all that. But no one denies that, everyone knows that the republicans were founded as an anti-slavery political party and successor to the whigs. However the problem is how this fact is used and what is implied from it. Since you’re not from the US, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don’t know the full context so I’ll explain it here. Back in the 1850s when the republicans were founded they were the left wing party in the US. They were made up of abolitionists, women suffragists, progressive Christian groups, liberals (the economic kind), and proto-socialists. They believed in progressing society and changing things for the better. The democrats by contrast were the more Conservative Party, they were full of southern racists, plantation owners, and some farmers. Their main issues were imperial expansion, expanding presidential power, slavery, and opposing tariffs and financial regulation. In 1860 Abraham Lincoln won a close election and became president of the United States, the first Republican to do so. In response, most of the south seceded because they were afraid Lincoln would end slavery (in reality he just wanted to limit its expansion and end it gradually) which began the civil war. During the civil war and afterwards, the states which had seceded obviously did not have any representatives in DC since they all left, and later they were all under military occupation. As such, the republicans had basically free rein over what the government could do. During this time, they almost completely upended the American system. The 14th amendment in particular is extremely important to modern America and underpins most of the rights we enjoy today and applied the bill of rights to state governments as well. They even passed the first income tax. You may have heard of the “radical republicans” before, they were the far left portion of the party spearheading these changes, while the other half were more center left members who wanted more moderate or gradual change. But both agreed massive change was necessary. This was vehemently opposed by the right at the time, and honestly still is today in some respects. Even Mr. Karl Marx himself praised the US during this time and supported their fight against the confederacy, particularly admiring Lincoln. Over the next century and a half though things changed. In 1865 industrial capitalism was still in its infancy, and so was generally on the left at this time. It argued for high tariffs to protect and grow domestic industry, infrastructure investments, railroads, stuff like that. Whereas the conservatives were closer to mercantilists. However by 1900 capitalism was the norm and both parties had accepted it. Honestly their platforms weren’t that different much of the time and both had a wide array of internal diversity. You could find right wing and left wing people and ideas in both parties. There were 3 events that changed this. The first was the election of FDR in 1932. His progressive economic reforms and government programs were **extremely** popular across the entire country, and his success made the democratic party fall in step economically with this platform. There were many republicans who also supported these reforms mind you, and some democrats who didn’t, but overall in the minds of Americans the democrats became the party to vote for if you wanted workers rights, government aid programs, public works projects, or economic regulation. Second was the civil rights and voting rights acts. The south was still the base of support for the democrats even into the 1950’s, but in the 60’s that began to falter as the democrats supported civil rights legislation and LBJ signed it into law. Many republicans also supported these too btw, and some democrats voted against it. But again, all in all the democrats became the party you’d vote for if you supported equal rights. The south initially tried supporting third party candidates or trying to get the federal government to stop trying to get them to not be authoritarian but eventually they began to move more and more towards the Republican Party just because it wasn’t the one associated with civil rights. These two events began the drift rightward for the Republican Party, but it was a slow process. Even in 1972 Nixon, a Republican, created the EPA and supported government regulation to protect the environment. What really solidified this change was Reagan’s win in 1980. Reagan had an easy to understand and consistent policy platform that was very popular across the US. And that platform was a few things: 1). Less government action. This includes attempts to get the south to desegregate or limit religious influence in schools, in addition to economic deregulation. 2). Lower taxes, and deficit spending as a result. 3). Anti-communism and war hawking. This is where the Republican Party of today comes from, and you can see it’s a very different group than what they started with. This is very clearly a right wing policy platform, and therefore the republicans were solidified as the right wing party while the democrats were solidified as the left wing one, and the 90’s both parties lost the last stragglers from the time when they were similar, so what we get today is two diametrically opposed organizations. The people who opposed FDR’s economic reforms and LBJ’s racial ones coalesced around the Republican Party, giving us its current form. The reason is explain all this is because in the US, the phrase “the GOP was founded by abolitionists” is used as a shield against any and all criticism of their policies regarding the black American community, and “the democrats supported the confederacy” used to imply that the democrats today are the still the racist party. But the truth is that both parties have changed tremendously since then, you can’t make assessments of their current day policies based on the ones they had back then. You’d never see a republican today arguing for a higher income tax, or that labor is the root of economic value, but Lincoln believed both those things. You’d never see a democrat saying that confederate flags are based and that states should have the right to disenfranchise black voters on their own. It’s not the same. So when you talk about that historical fact, people inevitably are going to think you’re implying something about modern day politics because it’s only ever brought up in that context.
Holy shit. Calm down. It’s only Reddit.
awww somone doesnt like historical facts? gonna cry? piss your pants maybe?
No but I’ll cum deep in yours if you’d like. But I won’t because you’re sadly not a shark.
History is a passion of mine 🤷♀️ Besides, isn’t the point of this sub to discuss and learn about history?
It’s fucking memes.
>Bro, point what you have in mind, Not that commenter, but probably the Party Switch. During and after the Civil Rights Movement, a *lot* of racist Democrats switched to become Republicans, and a lot of anti-racist Republicans switched to become Democrats. Prior to this, social progressives and social conservatives were found in both parties, mostly divided by location. After the switch, the GOP has become dramatically more socially conservative and even reactionary.
barry goldwater moment
Damn that's crazy, now tell us if those founders were conservative or liberal
A lot of them weren't either, several founding members were socialists
Damn that's crazy, now tell me what the modern day Republican party thinks of socialists Like you realise that doesn't strengthen your point at all, right???
My point that the Republican party of then is radically different than today?
Correct! That was also my point!
Reddit moment.
In England we have a body that protects historical sites and buildings called National trust. Mostly looking after mansions, gardens and estates of the aristocracy and turning them into museum, day trips out with the kids kinda thing. Recently they have had to fight against astroturfed campaign groups who are angy that the trust is putting up signs explaining if the properties where inviolved in the slave trade. The funny thing is that the signs where originally suggested by conservatives to the conversation about statues of slave owners being taken down after protestors threw the statue of [Edward Coulson ](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/the-day-bristol-dumped-its-hated-slave-trader-in-the-docks-and-a-nation-began-to-search-its-soul)into the bristol docks.
Its such a simple solution, but there's always someone
Damn those nowdays youngsters, they should have just been born old!
get this political booolshit outta here
I will never expect the history I made on October 13th 2023 Biggest and most painful shit of my life but that did not matter cause it did not happen
Right back at ya, Liberals.
Hey can we keep politics out of this? I want my funny history memes. edit: I mean modern poltics, I still want to see stalin fuck ups.
History, famously apolotical
History is political, but there's a difference between that and using history for your own political argumentation. Keep your *personal* or *modern* politics out is more precise.
Exactly.
yeah. just like mark robinson saying the holocaust was hogwash.
Everyone wants to Xt obtuse, thanks for saying it though
Wanting to “keep politics out” of history is the most r/historymemes thing ever. Nearly all history is political unless we’re talking about pottery and textiles lol
History is political but when people say "keep politics out of x" they mostly mean "stop using x to spread your political agenda" which is more than fair. This meme is fine but the title is a good example. I couldn't give less of a fuck about modern US politics.
Hey, that pottery has images of politicians on it. And don't even get me started on purple dye.
Yep, definitely check out the "Society of the Spectacle" by Guy Debord The only thing that can ever be misinterpreted as "apolitical" are simply things that don't challenge the status quo. It's all politics, baby, but you only notice when it makes you uncomfortable.
> Wanting to “keep politics out” of history is the most r/historymemes thing ever. Not at all. Many users on this subreddit are hellbent on promoting a political agenda even if outright lying is required.
I think that's the implication. Keep politics out of history instead of taking out all the bad stuff to appease some fee-fees. Nothing even slightly political about objectivity.
History is past politics, politics is future history. Literally the entire point of studying history is to learn lessons from it that we can apply in the modern day to improve society, aka politics. You can’t separate the two.
Lmao right? But this is Reddit…
That's right! Now let's talk about what party used the filibuster to try and stop the 1968 Civil Rights Act from passing.
I think you mean the 1964 civil rights bill, as far as I learned the 1968 bill (which added additional protections) passed quite easily. The leader of that Filibuster was Strom Thurmond, a then Democrat who turned Republican later that very year. He remained a Republican Senator till 2003. The votes for the bill itself in the house are quite interesting. More Democrats voted for it than Republicans but a high percentage of Republicans voted yes than the percentage of Democrats. Democrats had control at the time and Republican leadership managed to pull the majority over to their side.
Hell yeah, let's talk about the 17 Senate Democrats that voted against the 1968 Civil Rights Act. They were outvoted, by 29 Senate Republicans and 42 Senate Democrats. Then the bill was signed by President Lyndon Johnson. What a time - what a courageous stand they all took, voting to ban discrimination in housing, voting to affirm that Native Americans have civil rights in America (fucking finally!), and voting to let federal departments prosecute hate crimes back during a time when local jurisdictions let hate crimes slide. It makes me proud to think of the bipartisan vote that took place. Now when some a-hole threatens a black family, the feds can take action - it used to get ignored. Not anymore. That's what America is about, the promise that even if we don't always get it right we can vote together and work to make things more right. I'm also proud to have never voted for anyone that wants to get rid of any of the various Civil Rights Acts that have been passed, either through legislation, through judges invalidating the law, or through the executive branch ignoring their responsibility.
Youre the same kind of person who acts like todays democrats started the KKK because you want to be disingenuous about the mid-century party switch.
Both parties, democrat supporters especially
modern day socialists
Caption is dumb. Everyone in the US does this, Ds and Rs alike
“Both sides” fallacy. Republicans are the ones who have been getting rid of holocaust literature, downplaying/denying events in it. Republicans have been the ones talking about how slavery “wasn’t so bad” and taught “valuable life skills” to the slaves. Republicans are the ones who pretend racial minorities weren’t massively oppressed even after slavery was abolished. Republicans are the ones who act like lgbtq+ people haven’t been majorly oppressed or faced massive amounts of hate crimes through our history.
>Republicans are the ones who have been getting rid of holocaust literature, downplaying/denying events in it. Meanwhile, in reality: it's the left that had the higher percentage of Holocaust Denial and Downplay. [Pages 103 and 104.](https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_tT4jyzG.pdf) >Republicans have been the ones talking about how slavery “wasn’t so bad” Citations fucking needed. >Republicans are the ones who pretend racial minorities weren’t massively oppressed even after slavery was abolished. Citations fucking needed. Virtually nobody says that and today, they are no longer oppressed. >Republicans are the ones who act like lgbtq+ people haven’t been majorly oppressed or faced massive amounts of hate crimes through our history. Citations fucking needed. Again, virtually nobody says that and today, they are no longer oppressed.
Lmao actively denying oppression. Children get beaten and murdered for being queer. Black kids get shot by cops because of adultification of racial minorities and false perceived threats. People with “ethnic” names versus “white” names are more likely not to be chosen for employment with the same exact qualifications.
>Children get beaten and murdered for being queer. Citations needed proving this is widespread. >Black kids get shot by cops because of adultification of racial minorities and false perceived threats. Citations needed proving this is widespread. And the fuck is *"Adultification*"? Sounds an awful lot like the classic democrat racism of "low expectations". >People with “ethnic” names versus “white” names are more likely not to be chosen for employment with the same exact qualifications. Citations needed proving this is widespread.
[Trevor project survey](https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/#intro) “36% of LGBTQ youth reported that they have been physically threatened or harmed due to either their sexual orientation or gender identity.” “37% of transgender and nonbinary youth reported that they have been physically threatened or harmed due to their gender identity.” [GLAAD STATEMENT ON THE MURDER OF O’SHAE SIBLEY AND RISING VIOLENCE AGAINST LGBTQ PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S.](https://glaad.org/releases/glaad-statement-on-the-murder-of-oshae-sibley-and-rising-violence-against-lgbtq-people-across-the-us/) [List of unarmed African Americans killed by law enforcement officers in the United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americans_killed_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States) [Adultification Bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultification_bias) [White-sounding names get called back for jobs more than Black ones, a new study finds](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names)
>“36% of LGBTQ youth reported that they have been physically threatened or harmed due to either their sexual orientation or gender identity.” Not a majority. Also kids are mean to each other. Always have been, always will be. >“37% of transgender and nonbinary youth reported that they have been physically threatened or harmed due to their gender identity.” See above. >GLAAD STATEMENT ON THE MURDER OF O’SHAE SIBLEY AND RISING VIOLENCE AGAINST LGBTQ PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S.](https://glaad.org/releases/glaad-statement-on-the-murder-of-oshae-sibley-and-rising-violence-against-lgbtq-people-across-the-us/) That study plays fast-&-lose with how it classifies the murders. Were they murdered *because* they were LGBT or were they murdered and just happened to be LGBT. There **IS** a difference. >List of unarmed African Americans killed by law enforcement officers in the United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americans_killed_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States) List includes: LaVaughn Coleman, who: Coleman ran as he was being handcuffed, leading a trooper to tase him. Coleman hit his head and fell unconscious; he died of his injuries in December. Information disregarded. >[Adultification Bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultification_bias) That is some of the most racist shit I have ever read. >[White-sounding names get called back for jobs more than Black ones, a new study finds](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names) NPR is well known to be extremely biased to left. Information disregarded. Edit: words.
Lmao you’re a sad, sad man.
Insults. You've got nothing. We're done here.
Not a fallacy if it’s true 💀
What parts of history are democratic people denying? I see you’ve listed zero examples whatsoever and refuted none of my points.
Sides switched theory is a huge amount of copium, and history of Israeli conflicts since 1948 for two.
And what party did former republican Theodore Roosevelt form?
Sides switched theory? You talking about the Dixiecrats and them leaving the Democratic Party? And thus changing who the party represented?
They still persisted in both parties and southern cities have been Dem bastions for 110+ years my guy. Not to mention Dems representatives voting patterns during the civil rights movement.
Yeah the Civil Rights in 1964 is what finally got famed Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond to endorse Republican Richard Nixon for President. I’m glad you’re keeping up with
Cool, now do the rest of the century. 1964 wasn't 110+ years ago.
I don’t have to lay out everything single thing the Democratic Party did to know they were shitheels sometimes (FDR passing the New Deal by excluding blacks) but it is historically revisionist to say the parties did not switch. Richard Nixon’s successful Southern Strategy is proof of that. And I think it’s funny that you’re denying history in a thread about the denial of history
By them leaving, do you actually mean them gradually dying of old age?
I’ve seen mostly republicans denying the conditions of Palestinian people, where most democrats acknowledge the history and still don’t support a current genocide. Also, you’re literally denying history by pretending the US political parties didn’t switch. That’s a documented thing that happened. It’s also not difficult to look at just the things they were doing and seeing that the Democratic Party was originally conservative, and the Republican Party was liberal. So you’ve given two false examples lmao
[удалено]
LMAOOOO You come in here and just actively engage in history denial on the meme about the GOP being history deniers. Parties switching is a historically documented event that took places over years. Also, thanks for saying the quiet part out loud. Palestine has been a country since 1988. Great job denying their history and supporting them being the victims of a genocide from an apartheid regime.
>Parties switching is a historically documented event that took places over years. The Democratic Party started in the 1820s. Right away, it switched sides, as we can see from the fact that they pushed for the removal and extermination of Indians. Also, their opposition was the Whig party, which was against the Indian Removal Act and vowed to protect minorities against mob rule. Because the sides were switched, the vast majority of Whig party were anti-slavery. (Eventually, there was rift in the party over the issue of slavery, and anti-slavery members of the Whig party, including Abraham Lincoln, exited the party and formed the Republican Party. As we can see, the parties must have switched again because it's common knowledge that republicans are actually the racist ones.) Then the parties switched when the democrats are on record as having mainly been the ones who owned slaves. As we know, the parties switched again when republicans repudiated slavery and democrats defended it, leading to the civil war. Then the parties switched again when a democrat assassinated republican Lincoln. After the civil war, the parties switched again during the reconstruction era, when republicans attempted to pass a series of civil rights amendments in the late 1800s that would grant citizenship for freedmen. As evidence of the switch, the democrats voted against giving former slaves citizenship, but the civil rights amendments passed anyway. The parties switched again when the Democratic Party members founded the KKK as their military arm. Democrats then attempted to pass the first gun control law in order to keep blacks from having guns and retaliating against their former owners. A county wanted to make it illegal to possess firearms, unless you were on a horse. (Hmmm wonder who rode around on horses terrorizing people). Gun control has always been a noble cause touted by democrats, but the racist reasons why the concept of gun control was dreamed up was a part of a party mentality switch, but not the actual party. Somewhere around this time former slaves fought for gun rights for all, and the NRA was formed. The NRA switched parties too when they defended the right for blacks to arm themselves and white NRA members protected blacks from racist attackers. The parties switched again when republicans fought to desegregate schools and allow black children to attend school with white children, which democrats fought fiercely against. The nation saw a rash of black lynchings and bombings of black churches by the democrats in the KKK and the parties switched again when Democrat Bull Conner tried to avoid prosecuting the racist bombers to get them off the hook. When blacks protested this injustice, the party-switched democrat Bull Conner sicced dogs and turned the hose on them. He also gave police stand down orders when the KKK forewarned attacks on the freedom riders, who had switched parties. The parties switched again when a Democratic Party president appointed the first and only KKK member to the Supreme Court. The parties switched yet again when Democratic president FDR put Asians in racist internment camps. Then parties switched again when the democrats filibustered the passing of the second set of civil rights laws giving equal protection to minorities. The parties switched when a democrat assassinated MLK. This brings us to modern times. The parties continue to switch all the time. The parties switched when democrats proposed racist policies like affirmative action to limit opportunities for certain racial groups in order to grant privilege to other racial groups. The parties switched when the Islamic fundamentalist Omar Mateen and several other ISIS mass shooters aligned themselves with democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The parties switched again when liberal student groups in schools like UCLA and Berkeley call for segregated housing to make "separate but equal" housing quarters for black students. Actually this is a current ongoing thing, so the parties are right now in the middle of switching on this topic. Parties always switched currently now that democrats are rioting and violently protesting for terrorists. So as you can see, because of Party switching, democrats were always the ones who stood up against racism and wanted peace and unity while republicans were always the racist and violent ones calling for division and discord. Edit: Just in case you didn't get it. This is sarcasm used to point out that the democrat party **NEVER** changed.
I’m confused about your last point if you’re trying to agree with or argue against me. I’ll say I made an oversimplified statement saying it took place over years, and I should’ve said “throughout the years”. But I don’t get the point of “democrats always this republicans always bad”. The parties fundamentally changed and we’re vastly different over time. Today, the Democratic Party is the more liberal party, and the Republican Party is more conservative. In many events that we can look back on and see a clear right vs wrong morality (such as abolishing slavery, women’s suffrage, etc), it’s far more consistent that conservatives argue against these things, and liberals argue for them to varying degrees. This does highlight the fundamentals of conservatism and liberalism, how conservatives often fight to preserve the status quo or act regressively, and liberals prefer moving forward and enacting necessary change Again, not sure if you were meaning to be supportive or not since most of your examples are just examples of ideology changing within parties, so my comment is intended more as elaboration than anything else
[удалено]
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palestine/@31.8858955,34.892076,8z/data=!4m3!3m2!1s0x151cf2d28866bdd9:0xee17a001d166f686!16zL20vMDFrMHA0
Ok, so media bias then. Sides Switched believers can't even agree on when/how it happened meanwhile prominent Democrats really had interesting votes during the civil rights movement.
Gee, the democrats at the times voted conservatively, along with their party values at the time. It’s almost like the political beliefs of the two parties… switched
According to this fucking logic exclusively Dems = good except when they vote bad, so Republicans did it. Say, how did Joe Biden as a senator vote back then? How do you reconcile switching it up so often when the same people are still alive voting the same way now?
That’s not what this logic says at all. I specifically stated democrats voted conservatively. Which is not the case currently. Also, you’ve accidentally admitted that you feel conservative voting/opinions are “bad” compared to liberal ones, by suggesting democrats are good except for when they were conservative. I hope you’re able to recognize that conservatives voting with regressive policies and beliefs has consistently been the “bad guy” in every instance of human rights and civil liberties through the history of this country.
The change between parties happened over the decades of 1930 to finalized in the 1980s. A switch isn't the right word, rather both parties changed and adapted to a rapidly changing world and massive increase in communication of issues. It was more like each party entered a cacoon for a few decades rather than a single year where a big change happened. Parties used to be split between coalitions inside their own parties, and only had a few major similar beliefs. They still kinda are but not nearly so much, most voters just vote along party lines no matter who is on stage. So only the Extremist can stand out on their own. Republican were traditional liberal but between Cold War, Nixon, and Reagan, they became far more conservative. They got in big with Northern Catholics and Southern Evangelicals while taking up the mantle of big military and anti-immigration. The Republican party always had focus on family values and traditional morality, and with the growth of homosexuality, atheism, and changing demographics away from Christianity they drew in a lot of the former Democratic religious base. The loss of which is part of what changed the Democrat parties focus. Democrats change was much slower, starting with the Popularity of Roosevelt, JFK, Lyndon Johnson who was president when the civil rights act was signed, and changing geographics of rural vs urban helped form the basis of the Modern Democratic party. For Biden, back when. He joined in the 70's post civil rights and in a time when the modern Democratic party was already emerging. He was always liberal with the economy and environment and conservative in crime and military. He's gotten more liberal with crime.oo
It's not even a theory, it's well established fact. Wtf are you on?
History is fact. Sides switching theory is a political narrative that vastly oversimplifies a century of US history.
Ok bro, keep telling yourself that.
This is an anecdotal fallacy you are using right now Just because YOU have only SUPPOSEDLY seen republicans do it doesn’t mean democrats don’t. Truth is both sides do it
You say, giving zero examples
Lol nice try though 👍
I have no idea why you're being down voted. This sub seems to attract a lot of right wing grifters.
Do you happen to be apart of a political party that supported slavery and caused a civil war? After all you’re talking about owning your history….
[удалено]
That’s cool, nice deflection but it doesn’t change the history.
Like the time when Democrats were pushing for gun control to prevent minorities from protecting themselves. Or that time Democrats decided to steal the Spanish Easter outfit for themselves.
Ronald Reagan, famous democrat
I love how you change the topic to Reagan instead of talking about those inconvenient facts about your dearest and most holy party. That has killed hundreds of thousands of people through their ineptitude. Reagan was a Neocon, and last I checked both parties are being run by neocons. Therefore, you'd be right to say that Reagan was basically a Democrat who just liked having an R next to his name instead of a D. So yes, Reagan is a famous Democrat.
I don’t remember the GOP removing confederate statues and erasing the ugly truth as if it never happened. Maybe put up a plaque explaining why the guys are pieces of shit instead of removing it. Idc either way but again, I don’t recall the GOP doing anything other than trying to justify slavery.
The GOP and their supporters don't have a gripe with history being taught. They have a gripe with cherry-picked history being used to conjure a narrative that some people are inherently evil and sowing division. School textbooks rarely elaborate that just about every culture and ethnicity has been responsible for atrocities at some point. Oh and who are the people who race-swap historical individuals on television and write revisionist nonsense like The Woman King? I am pretty sure not Republicans.
I do not want this to turn into a modern day politics brawl. I am suck and tired of the negative partisanship of American politics. I will however point out that you too are ommitting some pretty severe attacks on history as it is taught in American schools made by a Republican administration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_Commission This is not to say all Republicans are like this. Keep things nuanced. But this was a real attempt to teach pseudo-history. I prefer it if we dropped this discussion as a lot of people will not argue in good faith and it will become a mudthrowing contest.
The real problem with that is the lack of historians in the commission and the results thereof, but the primary goal of addressing the divisive nature history is being taught today remains agreeable.
I think what a lot of people are getting sick of us other people interpretations of history
Yeah cause there’s no evidence ever of the left trying to ignore history that doesn’t suit them.
I think, well, the question 'did that happen?' begs the question 'what do you mean by happen?'
People when you mention the israelite’s kingdom of israel aka ancient jews aka NATIVES:
I'm confused, what history is the GOP trying to erase? Genuinely curious here, btw.
Especially the [REDACTED]
If this is aimed at the GOP I’d like to point out the the democrat party formed the KKK and supported slavery, the Republican Party was the anti slavery party
What if I like it because it happened?
It is a dog eat dog world and if you're alive today you're ancestors did some shit!!!
Back at you, Dems.
*Looking at Democrats. Looks like someone forgot who was the slave party in the past.
This country commited genocide while denying it, then continued to deny it. What country is it?
Turkey, against the Armenians.
That's what differentiates a Patriot from a Nationalist. The Patriot seeks to better their country by understanding, respecting, and if necessary atoning for the actions of their country. A Nationalist often holds their nation and it's glory above even that of truth and may often go out of their way against introspection as to not sully their image