http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2001/12/28/143934

Where to begin?  How about with the first paragraph.

"The year was 1957. Monroe, N.C., was a rigidly segregated town where all levels of white society and government were dedicated to preserving the racial status quo. Blacks who dared to speak out were subject to brutal, sadistic violence."

Racial status quo?  You mean the White majority didn't want to integrate with the Black minority?  Isn't that democracy in action?  So what it is really saying is that the federal government forced a racial program on it's unwilling citizens.  Doesn't sound quite so noble that way, does it?  "Brutal, sadistic violence?"  Not just violence, "brutal, sadistic violence."  A lot like you're likely to encounter in today's inner cities, I would imagine.

"It was common practice for convoys of Ku Klux Klan members to drive through black neighborhoods shooting in all directions. A black physician who owned a nice brick house on a main road was a frequent target of racist anger."

That is the biggest load of unsubstantiated crap I've ever read in my life.  It ranks right up there with the 41 times more likely to kill theory.  We're supposed to believe that GROUPS of KLANSMEN drove through neighborhoods SHOOTING?  Can you really even imagine that happening, at any time period?  Where are the news reports?  Police reports?

"In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams."

My, those noble negroes certainly showed those cowardly Klansmen, didn't they?  Nevermind the fact that most of those alleged Klansmen would have been WWII/Korea vets.  Again, this just defies belief...the Klan was sending out armed motorcades to attack blacks?  What?

"Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen with no casualties reported on either side."

So these White men, who were undoubtedly mostly vets themselves, were run off by a small group of untrained men, without suffering a single casualty?  That certainly makes me wonder how we managed to win WWII, since American fighting men are so easily cowed.  And I love the use of "freedom fighters"...I would think that the spirit of freedom would be following the wishes of the majority, instead of catering to a small, noisy minority.  Where were these brave, noble, "freedom fighters" during the Civil War?  They seem so willing to fight for their rights yet they allowed themselves to be treated like cattle, and 500,000 White men died for their freedom.  My, how that must burn their collective as*es.

cont.

"According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases, police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases, fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their intended victims were armed."

Of course...they were victims of terrible violence, yet in the article it states that they never had to shoot anyone.  How terrible was this violence, then?  

My favorite part...those "fanatical racists" suddenly turned coward.  Let's see here...most White men in WWII almost certainly held racist beliefs...did they turn cowards and run when faced with armed enemies?  What about the South during the Civil War?  I don't believe I've ever heard the Southern Armies described as cowardly.  Or if you want to be even less politically correct, how about the ultimate in fanatical racists, WWII Germany.  Were they cowards?  According to this article, only cowards hold racist beliefs.

"Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men who were willing to use them prevented greater violence."

That is rather odd, isn't it?  Since it is so odd, when compared to the level of "sadistic violence" these Black men were supposedly subjected to, the reporter just decides to ignore that glaring little inconsistency.

"It is important to note that the guns were not used offensively. They were part of an overall strategy that relied primarily on peaceful protest like picketing or entering whites-only establishments."

Of course they weren't.  They were just poor little negroes who wanted their share of the American dream.  Whites-only establishments?  Seems to me that in a truly free society a business owner is free to serve whoever he chooses.  So basically they forced their way into places they weren't welcome...seems like the Whites could have used a few more guns.  We's comin' in dere, and you Whiteys had better let us, this be a democracy.

"In 1962 the Monroe freedom fighters were overwhelmed by a huge mob that converged on the town. The Justice Department and the state police ignored calls for help. The rabid racists were aided by law enforcement that branded Williams a communist and a dangerous schizophrenic.
Rob Williams eluded an FBI manhunt and fled to Cuba, which he erroneously believed to be free of racism. Within five years he realized that Cuba was not as he had imagined and moved on to China. There he was treated as a celebrity and returned to the United States in 1969 with the quiet blessing of Richard Nixon."

Heres where the blatant propagand really shines through.  Those law enforcement bigots accused Williams of being a commie...of course they were totally wrong, and it was just the usual despicable racist tactic of slander.  And to prove them all wrong, Williams fled the country to COMMUNIST CUBA, WHO WAS DAMN SURE NO FRIEND OF THE USA IN THE 1960'S.  And since Castro didn't treat him like a noble Black man should be treated, he went to COMMUNIST CHINA.  Now, he certainly wasn't a COMMIE, now was he?  Man, were they way off base or what?

So basically the man who the entire article is in praise of was a commie, or at least certainly a commie sympathizer.  What a great champion of freedom.  What a load of leftist, pc BS.

I wonder how long this one will last...

Who is this asshole?

[img]http://www.rickrope.com/ml.jpg[/img]

Someone who's tired of tired of revisionist history.  This great gun owner/freedom fighter/civil rights leader was nothing more than a communist.  We're supposed to celebrate that, while actively despising the people who opposed him?  Defies logic if you ask me.  The entire article is about how terrible/cowardly/devious us White people were, while this Black commie was Martin Luther King incarnate.  Truth and reason matter to me, apparently you're content to be spoon fed liberal drivel.  

can you say "pravda"

"The rabid racists were aided by law enforcement that branded Williams a communist and a dangerous schizophrenic."

"...fled to Cuba, which he erroneously believed to be free of racism. Within five years he realized that Cuba was not as he had imagined and moved on to China. There he was treated as a celebrity and returned to the United States in 1969 with the quiet blessing of Richard Nixon."

Who exactly do you think Cuba was letting into their country in the 1960's?  Gun toting American patriots?  Or communist sympathizers?  Do you think you or your dad would have just been allowed to immigrate there?  Sure, Castro loves American capitalists.

Then, after Cuba wasn't to his satisfaction, China welcomed where he was treated LIKE A CELEBRITY.  Wonder why that was?

Brown can read between the lines just like anyone else.  The fact is that "conservatives" are desperately trying to shake the racist image the left has given them, so they engage in the same kind of feel good historical revisionism as the left does.  You don't think they look at all the non-Whites in the USA and not think about the potential voting power they have?  I guess you're far less cynical than I am then.

Fact is, Cuba wouldn't have welcomed someone who wasn't sympathetic.  Neither would have China.

Ditto.

.

No discussion will be tolerated, eh?  Have you ever been to Cuba by any chance?  There's nothing insulting in my post.  It's simply pointing out that the entire article is crap.  I guess the idea of a White man believing that his ancestors weren't cowards makes you uncomfortable.

My Grandfather was opposed to integration.  He wasn't a Klansman, and I doubt he ever even gave any thought to joining any kind of a group like that.  His flag, medals, and letter of commendation sit on my desk.  In other words, the proof that my Grandfather the racist wasn't a coward.  Kind of hard to run from Kamikazes, know what I mean?  According to this article, by even holding racist ideas he became some kind of opportunistic, conniving, bigoted coward.  He fought for your right to be here, where was your Grandfather?  In communist China, perhaps?

[:K]

This is a sick man.

The pitiful "intolerance of tolerance" bullshit argument again...

No diferent than a rapist saying he has a right to rape because he is just exercising his belief that women should submit to men.

Or that a murder had a right to kill becuase his victims interfered with his ability to live as he pleases.

I would tell you to burn in hell but your existance reminds me that we are all already living in it...

[img]junior.apk.net/~scotts/nowsafe.JPG[/img]