The civil rights movement as an insurgency?

The Spring 2010 issue of Quarterly Journal of Military History has an article that claims the civil rights movement was an insurgency.
I sort of agree but I also disagree. I am just stunned that a mainstream magazine would print this.
I would like others to comment on this. I will leave you with the ending of the article,
"...The Southern white moderates unwilling to pay the price of a continued system of apartheid. Had that not occured, said a former King aide, "the South today would look like Beirut looks today."

That man has not been to Detroit recently

 

Here is the link.

 

I'm surprised this thread hasn't gotten legs.

John

 

The sad part of the civil rights thing is that nobody understood the damage they were doing. The black establishment was completely ruined along with Jim Crow. Somewhat like radiation treatment for cancer. A lot of good cells get killed along with the bad.

Because of the civil rights movement, the entire black community has been destroyed and they will never recover. In the end, when they're no longer needed by the bums who'er using them, they'll be done away with.

Tom Iron...

 

The civil rights movement was largely a plot to break up the U.S as a white country and the biproduct was some new rights for blacks. The movement was Jewish funded and controlled. The NAACP did not have a black president until the 1970's before that they were all Jewish dating back several decades the the NAACP's orgin.

 

It was about undermining the traditions & strength of our Republic...founded by White, Christian men. The Globalist Elite ensured they damaged the future of White Americans by watering down the education system, workforce & society in general.

 

QFT!!! </font>

 

The "civil rights" movement originated shortly after the Civil War, and if done properly at the time, before the government largesse as we know it now, might have been better for the black community and for the country as a whole, but was opposed by the Democrat party. By the time that the modern-day civil rights movement came about, it became more about how government can acquire more power and be the "Massa" then about civil rights. So as far as a ground-roots "insurgency", I disagree. It might have been at its 18th century inception, but at the time it was "imposed" it was just another political calculation.

 

I don't feel comfortable calling the civil rights movement an insurgency. If you accept this idea then the Tea Parties, or the anti-abortion movements (Or even the pro abortion) are insurgencies. This means you can use government power to stop them. I prefer to call these social movements.
I also feel the Black Power movement was different than the civil rights movement. It had different goals and objectives.
Affirmative action is different than Black Power or the civil rights movement. These three movements tend to lumped together, when they have little in common with them.
BTW, when did the affirmative action program start? Was it in June 1972 when title IX was passed? Or was it sooner? Affirmative Action has had a major effect on my life.

 

Was National Socialism a social movement?

John

 

foreverfree,

To answer your question, yes and no. Like anything, there's all sorts of different levels to the study of anything.

The interesting thing to the Nazi movement is all the different things that came together at the same time to bring it to power. It was a combination of all opponents of the Nazis lousing things up several times when they could have easily killed the party. The same the other way, the Nazis just happened to do the right thing at the right time. Many times, they just stumbled/blundered their way forward.

Very interesting subject though.

Tom Iron...

 

What is a civil right anyway?

 

City government power was used (Birmingham's finest) against the Freedom Riders). County power was used (county deputies) against the Selma marchers.

John

 

Bull Connor didn't take any crap from the trouble-makers!

 

Yes, every aspect of society has been re-tooled to fit the agenda.

Obama and his handlers are moving at warp speed. There is nothing in the way to impede their progress.

Alex Linder can be a very divisive figure, but the son of a gun is a damn good analyst and writer.

He made some interesting observations in a thread about health care. Fits with the theme of this thread.

I modified a word to fit posting guidelines.

"Yep. There will be further discrimination against white men in medical schools. I have gone to a lot of doctor shops in the last three years. The doctors were all white, and most of them were men. But about 90% of the interns, the ones tracking around the doctors they will become as part of their training, are either white females or third-worlders, male and female. This is rather obviously by intention. It tracks with what you see on college campuses in general. The intent is to create a new elite, and a new world. The new world will be run by 'minorities,' and white men will be the demonized outsiders, the ones it is socially acceptable to hate. There's a complete gleichschaltung, to use the German word - a coordinated message/policy from the top down, and it manifests across the board - in pornography, in country music, in tv advertisements, in medical school admissions.

What socialists want, in a nutshell, is for all serious decisions to be made by a centralized authority. That's the general rule. In a mixed-race society, as the US today, the idea is to have white males as draft horses. The butts bearing the burdens. The clydesdales hauling the beer to the negro-jew-white-female all-night party. Whites are being farmed, essentially. Their talents are being used while their name is being abused. The only place white men are treated with respect are in ads trying to get them to join the military, ie go abroad to die for Israel."

 

where is there for Whites to go? i'm not being rhetorical. tis a serious question, as i don't see a viable option at this point. is America not the Alamo of White people in the West?

 

Northern Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming or the Yukon Territory is where I'd bug out to if I had the $ for a few hundred acres and a nice survivalist compound.

 

What about Russia? They have many white nationalist women who are just that, women, and a beautiful taiga. Out of all the white people, I'd say they are the most athletic by a little, also.

Alaska would be equally as gorgeous if not more so because I'd imagine there are more mountains, but I'm guessing the women aren't much like in the south.

Isn't the South a nice refuge? I'm up North right now so I wouldn't know.

 

An example of this is the Los Angeles County DA's office. The majority of its prosecutors have been women for a few years now. This office has been criticized for losing the "big ones" for a long time. These losses were almost always by female prosecutors. What do they do? They load up with Marcia Clark types.

 

SW, Russia would be okay, but I don't speak the langauge. As a born/bred Southerner, I love Dixieland...BUT it's more populous and has more ******** & illegal invaders than does the afforementioned areas. If I could "bug out" when the $%it hits the fan, it'd be to a sparesly populated area out in the extreme wilderness (off the grid). I'd love a hidden compound in Alaska stocked with loads of non-pershible food, H2O, gas, etc. I don't have the means for such an optimal "escape" destination, but if I have came across a windfall of cashola...I'd pursue that.

 

I'm not leaving my "hood." I'm going to stay and defend it to the bitter end. IMHO white flight, and sorry a$$ realtors, got us in the mess we are in today.

 

Obviously, all Scandinavian nations would be the absolutely best option for white "flight." Especially Finland, Iceland, and Greenland, which have the highest percentage of whites per capita on planet earth. Like every other white nation, they are trying their hardest to ruin this for future generations of white children. Also, 80%+ of Canada's total population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

Not to be "violent" or "extreme," but 75-80% of american citizens live within major cities...so if those areas were detonated, guess who would be the last men standing?

 

I have read that some large Scandinavian cities (in Sweden?) already have or nearly have a White minority in them. They have many Turkish and other middleeastern people along with a growing Somalian population.

 

Lutefisk, there are only 25,000 Somalians in the entire country of Sweden and about 100,000 from Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Demographics

Considering the population is over 9,000,000 that's not too many "foreigners."