I beg to differ. It would be the equivocal to the post slavery condition. After slavery, there were many who wanted to stay on the plantation for it was the only life they had known. And they didn't want to make waves either. So they continued at subpar wages. To this day my grandmother still lives in Mississippi in the home that she and granddad built. They worked on the white guys farm for all their younger years and they never thought to leave the condition. Going north to the big city was not an interest for them and they were content to continue to work the mans farm for minimal wages. It was clean living and they were not challenged to do much else. They were happy to just be there. They worked hard and they got money. They saved and provided the "living" family link to the memories of the times from the past. Lynchings in the south are still fresh memories in her mind. Cross burnings in the south were actually a real terror and part of her youth. So from that standpoint I'd agree. The Mexican condition is not equal. But the aftermath is quite similar. My family migrated from the south to Chicago and five brothers provided the anchor for the family transition. Two moved north, then two followed. Living with the others until they got anchored. Then about four cousins and the last brother and two sisters moved north and stayed with them. The family base grew from living with the others until they got grounded. They were legal U.S. citizens though, unlike todays' Mexican invaders. Key difference!
:eek: Sorry to burst that bubble, but he's not admired by all. Just so's you knows. There are a whole lot of elderly African Americans who still call him several very unflattering names (my grandparents included). And they will until they die. As a matter of fact, he ain't too high on my list either. You should watch the Spike Lee documentary "Four Little Girls" (1997). In there you might see a bit of the true feelings that many folks still have about 'ole George.
I haven't seen the movie but I know that George Wallace did not have anything to do with that. He was a liberal at heart and proved it with his policies. Is why black leaders ( and black voters) embraced him. I'm sure some people not "in the know" were surely swayed by the politics he used getting elected. But the ones whose children were educated by his Junior Colleges and Trade Schools that werent available anywhere else understood. Knee-jerk Conservative Whites are too large of a voting block to buck, especially in the degregating South of the 1960's and 1970's. Do some real research on George Corley Wallace and look at him in a little different light and you will see an entirely different picture. His schoolhouse stand was a perfect example. He gave the nation what it needed in a dramatic performance where he delivered the students AND pacified the Nazi's. I'm sure you wouldn't have wanted what happened at Ole Miss to have happened at Bama would you? He knew what he was doing. He WAS a master. I am, and I am sure Governor Wallace was saddened by the fact that so many African Americans such as your grandparents were caught up in that garbage. Have you ever seen his apology for the things he did? Are you or your grandparents from Alabama?
Near the end of his life, he apologized, because he was wrong. So if Hitler apologized at the end of his life, would all of his sins no longer count in the eyes of men?
So I guess your butt your head against a wall approach is superior to a pragmatic approach like Governor Wallace's? You would have gotten alot of folks killed in Alabama in the 1960's and 1970's. I am personally grateful when an effective pragmatist like George Wallace or Bill Clinton comes along.
Pay attention to your own statement here. Black leaders does not a people make. As much as you'd like to believe they do, they truly do not represent the African American opinion as much as you'd like to believe. They do love the white press/public as that is where they get that anointing. But I must tell you, it's not as solid a gauge as you might wish to believe. Now as for George, he (and history) still has to live with that first impression that he left with many of the older African American generation. They are not as vocal as they need to be outside of the whispering circles. They live with a different credo. They don't openly complain and air the dirty laundry, feelings or emotions. Especially to white folks and the press. I am sure you can understand what that represents to them. Or maybe you can't. They will politely smile and quietly sit and stew on their disgust with an issue. And in that case, they still do! You want me to research and look at him differently. You wish me to ignore his past transgressions? Not a chance. Forgive him for them, ok. But I still have to remember them and the pain and hurt for what it was. That's just reality. If I kick your teeth in and then say I am sorry you still will remember it for what it was. Even if I promise to never do it again. My becoming an excellent dentist won't change that fact either. Black voters did what got them more funds. They learned how to use the system also. And just as he used them to get office, they used him to get funds. A parasite relationship that was enjoyed by most politicians of the south (actually everywhere). Don't read too much into the vote totals as a way to say they loved him. We do vote our wallets too you know? I had relatives at Ole Miss and it still is an issue with them. My grandmother vividly remembers lynching in Mississippi from her youth. The horror is there after all these years. The scares still hurt. Well, for many George represented a time of horror in this country. Rightly or not, that is a solid stain. Do you tell a Jewish person to move on and get over the Holocaust? I don't need to read about George, I can ask some of my older relatives how they feel about him. And I don't have to hope that I'm not going to get the PC answer that you might get. You see you can write about it differently to reflect a softening attitude. But they lived it! You care not to write the pain because it won't reflect the change that you need to show. If you happen to write the true pain, the apology might not get enough credit. You said that he was saddened by all that garbage? Who was a major player in all that garbage? A central figure slinging it everywhere he could. All the vile and hatred that came about was caused by who's hand in there? And who forced him to be that way again? Don't un-write history here. The rewrite comes further away from the whole truth and sanitizes your pallet a little too much. I am sure that the elderly Alabama coalition of my family would differ with your adjustment of history also. The movie that I spoke of allowed a few of the active folks of the period to say what was on their minds. And as nice as they were, you saw and heard that they still hurt from that time. The movie played his sorrowful apology. Right after it showed his statements of hatred made to spark the whole mess. Properly framing the period and the reasoning for all the apologies so that you knew why they were being made. And it also showed the elderly African American gentleman that actually became his caretaker. It's a DVD that you need to rent/buy. You too can see the pain and rough edges of the people in the film as they react to his statements. They forgave, they just didn't forget! Nor will I.
:eek: pragmatist - a person who takes a practical approach to problems and is concerned primarily with the success or failure of her actions I'm just floored. This is a non-statement here. It could very easily apply to Wallace's pre-apologetic self also. The Clinton piece is just laughable. Clinton is just down right opportunistic. Always calculating how to get over. Let's not even go there, ok? You just don't know the undertow in the community when he is truly talked about. When he is discussed outside of the political context it's just pitiful. He's the white guy who walks up to a group of African Americans and chat's a while because he BELIEVES he's cool. Then after he leaves he is the butt of so many comments. And it's across all economic levels. The respect is truly for the office and the accomplishments, not the man.
Sharecropping, migrant worker & "Slavery" are totally different. You can't possibly make a link between them. The Sharecropper has rights and can leave without judicial repercussions. The migrant worker can work - "wherever there is work available". The Slave would have been executed, whipped, hung or all of the aforementioned. No comparison. The main difference is "Choice" all but the Slave have/had choices to make. The slave(s) only option was to comply or die. I don't see any migrant workers or sharecroppers hanging from any trees??? It's all about - "definitions" You can't change the meaning of a word to suite your own means. peace out.
Again, you missed a word or two. The description that I used was post slavery. At which point sharecropping was an option. And the wages that they garnered were less than what should have been paid. There were no medical benefits or job security either. The conditions were similar even without government intervention or mandating. That's my point. It's not how the condition was arrived at, it's that the condition existed. Couch your conditional response in the timeframe at the moment also. Not the word definitions, that's where we have the separations of opinions. There is no comparison of forced slavery verses voluntary slavery. But both are still slavery.