A troubling sight...
Whoa, there, fellas! Let's hold our horses!
The picture below might wrongly offend some folks. Wrongly, because in order to take offense they'd have to be historical illiterates.
Let me backtrack a bit...
As often happens with me, several disparate thoughts crowded into the narrow space between my ears and began duking it out. One was the relatively recent (in blogosphere "years" :-) brouhaha over senate rules regarding filibusters. Senator Robert C. Byrd waxed eloquent (well, as eloquent as that cracker—with my apologies to illiterate crackers everywhere for associating your ilk with that slimy _____ —ever gets) about senate traditions and respect for minority positions, yadayadayada Complete and utter B.S.
Let's take a trip in the Wayback Machine and let Mr. Peabody clear the record a bit.
It's June 10, 1964, and "...Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays."* And what, pray tell was the context of Byrd's address? Oh, it was a Democratic filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964! Yep. Just as the Democrats had filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, they did again, led by Byrd this time, in 1964.
Byrd's filibuster was just the capstone to 57 days of Democratic stalling.
So much for giving minority voices a hearing.
Indeed, had not Republicans strongly backed the bill, Hubert Humphrey, the putative Democratic hero of the story, would never have been able to overcome defecting Democrats to obtain a 67-vote cloture.
And yet, despite steady Republican support and even leadership in genuine Civil Rights issues (as opposed to phony issues like assuring the patronizing and racist quota system—otherwise known as "affirmative action"), the Democrats still have an apparent lock on the Black vote. Keep 'em on the plantation, eh, Byrd?
So, the lawn "jockey" pictured above... There's a long (and disputed by recent arguments, all from a perspective of "feeling" that historical accounts must be wrong, rather than from facts) story behind these things. I'm leaving that aside for now. Just look at the picture of the one above as dispassionately as possible, for just a moment. This is one of the early ones, dressed not in jockey attire but in the common clothing of an 18th century slave.
That picture above, quite frankly, my friends is what Robert C. Byrd sees when he looks upon a black person: Property of the DNC. What gain to be free of chattel slavery if one is simply to sell onself into political, economic and social bondage for a pottage?
Robert C. Byrd, indeed the entire racist, race-baiting DNC is beyond disgusting. And the blacks who have sold out to the DNC and work to keep their brothers in chains are worse.
OK, so I'm a white boy and have no right to say these things? Wrong. Read the First Amendment again, bubba.