User talk:Cordeg

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Cordeg! Thank you for your contributions. I am Malik Shabazz and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Civil Rights Act of 1964
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I wanted to let you know that I reverted (undid) your edit to Civil Rights Act of 1964. Your contribution raised some interesting points, but I'm not sure the middle of the encyclopedia article is the best place to discuss them.

May I suggest that you start a discussion at Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1964 about how we can incorporate your suggestions into the article? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I respectfully suggest that your contention is inconsistent with previous edits, all of which were accepted despite being of a kind with those I submitted.


 * For example, the text in the first paragraph I edited originally stated that supporting civil rights cost LBJ the south. It then followed by saying that the south began voting Republican in larger proportion, clearly suggesting that the two were related (one followed the other more than lexicographically).  If it is legitimate to plant this implication, it should be equally legitimate to present fuller data to provide context that can aid in turning "data" into "information".  Someone added the comment about Johnston and Schafer suggesting the voting trend was based "more on economics than on race", but provided no context to explain that assertion.  My edit simply provided some context to explain why economics and foreign policy (the latter not mentioned in the comment re Mssrs. Johnston and Schafer) might have influenced national voting trends while leaving voting patterns at the state/local level -- where racial segregation always derived its power -- largely unchanged across the south for decades.  It would seem that if this addition is out of place, then so is the entire discussion that it attempts to illuminate.


 * Similarly, descriptions of the CRA'64 vote have for years effectively called into question the character and racial attitudes of Senator Goldwater, even though anyone with a full measure of the history of Goldwater would have to suspend disbelief to conclude that he was voting 'with' white Democratic segregationists. Both personally and officially, Goldwater had long been a strong integrationist.  He co-founded the AZ branch of the NAACP and was a long-time member and supporter of both the NAACP and Urban League; as city councilman, he pushed to desegregate Phoenix public schools; and as chief of the AZ National Guard, he desegregated the corps before President Truman even thought of signing his executive order to begin the desegregation of the US armed forces.  Frankly, to remain intellectually honest, one would have to view Goldwater's 'support' of Democratic segregationists in precisely the same way that the ACLU 'supports' the neo-nazi movement when it stands up for the right of free speech that such lunatic fringe groups enjoy in this country.  I don't hold their principled position against the ACLU, but somehow those who politically oppose Goldwater have never displayed the same level of integrity.  Therefore, it would seem as legitimate to point out the opposition of Liberal icons JFK and LBJ to Civil Rights legislation during the Eisenhower administration as it was to note the opposition of Goldwater to the modified Kennedy proposal during the Johnson administration.  Frankly, I believe it would also be legitimate to note that JFK and LBJ didn't even have any apparent principle behind their earlier opposition as Goldwater put forward (they simply didn't want to upset the large portion of segregationists in their party), but I felt that would be pushing the point a bridge too far for balance.  In the event, if the additions are out of place, then again so is the original content.


 * Having said all that, I do think you might have a better leg to stand on with regard to the final comments regarding the naming of the Dirksen and Russell senate office buildings, but I've frankly never seen anyone make this point in print ever, even though it clearly suggests there is more to the actual institutional racist attitudes of our political parties than meets the eye in mass media depictions. I could have added that several years after the CRA'64 passage, senate Democrats chose Robert Byrd -- a leading opponent of civil rights -- as their Majority Whip over civil rights supporter Ted Kennedy, and several years later chose Byrd as their Majority Leader over Hubert Humphrey -- a leading light of Democratic Party civil rights support.  Even in the 21st century, they chose to honor Byrd as President Pro Tempore of the senate, an honor that placed him in the line of succession to the presidency.  Of course, he had by then dropped his opposition to civil rights and his Party could argue they had forgiven him for his passionate support of segregation -- though they still hadn't forgiven Goldwater for his rather more principled opposition to one civil rights bill after years of support for all civil rights measures.  Funny, that.  So, when the question is asked as to when the Democratic and Republican Parties "switch sides" on civil rights, it is not unreasonable to say that this is likely not even the right question to ask.  Things are more complicated that this in both the GOP and the Democratic Party; suggesting otherwise is an attempt to win elections by demagoguery.


 * Interestingly, I admit readily to being a registered Republican -- I joined the GOP at the age of majority for one over-riding reason: I couldn't in my youthful passion, forgive the Democratic Party for the serial crimes of slavery, black codes, and segregation -- even if they had started voting for civil rights legislation a century after the GOP began the legislative fight. I came to the civil rights movement by way of Wm. Garrison, who looked at blacks and asked "Is he not my brother?  Is she not my sister?" -- a position that even in the modern civil rights era did not seem an accurate description of the Democratic Party attitude.  I'm more circumspect these days in that regard, but still haven't been convinced they're really on the right track, though I have come to recognize that most of them may sincerely mean well.  Would that most of them could look across the aisle and at least offer the same.


 * The appropriate place to have this discussion is at Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1964, where other editors can contribute. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I thought I understood that to be your position re your previous comment, but then when I followed the supplied link it stated, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject", which seemed a not inaccurate description of the nature of the conversation regarding your editorial position and the rationale for why I thought the existing article either said not enough or too much about certain details.  Am I correct in concluding that the aforementioned statement on that page doesn't mean what it appears to imply?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.195.2 (talk) 03:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a "general discussion of the Civil Rights Act", it's a discussion about how to improve the article. That notice is intended to prevent people from writing things like "The CRA sucks and I hate it". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha! Understood. As I assumed that all the various "Talk" pages were intended for contributors, it never occurred to me that you got that kind of "discussion" on such a page.  Guess I better "read the manual" more...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.195.2 (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)