TockTockTock

I don't see that as being very "heterogeneous."

I don't think you can see too much variety (in terms of political ideology) in a movement such as this, which is largely considered to be right-of-center.

Wayfarer

o rly

hip hop bunny hop

J. Pat, the term right-of-center is misleading. There is little benefit in lumping nativist protestants such as Tom Tancredo in with hispanic Catholics, as their visions for America contrast greatly. Similarly, it denies the reality of Paleoconservatives & Libertarians vehement disagreement with NeoCons over Iraq 2, or these groups likewise disagreement over T.A.R.P., or Libertarians & Paleoconservatives differeing views on immigration.

Wayfarer; Mubarak fell because he was a western puppet, who ruled at the behest of the West; as such, his regime relied on external support from nations who would've pulled the rug out from under him if he committed a tiananmen. Contrast this with Iran, where the rulers aren't propped up by external support.

TockTockTock

I'm pretty sure the Civil Rights Movement was pretty successful, and it involved a series of protests. Didn't it?

And who can forget what Gandhi did in India? He protested as well.

Also, you can assign labels all you want... A libertarian is just a more politically conservative Republican. All of those you just listed are on the same side of the political spectrum.

Mr November

The whole Tea Party Movement thing is annoying right from the get go. Why do Americans think that leaving the British Empire because of taxes is some symbol of their divine awesomeness? It was pretty lame actually...

TockTockTock

It's supposed to symbolize their succession from from an oppressive monarchy to create a democratic-republican government. It was the first "rebellion" that helped lead to the development of the U.S. as an independent country. In my opinion, I think that's pretty important.

It's not so much about what they did, but more so on what the act represents in the country's history.

Mr November

It's over glorified, and I don't see how it's applicable to what this particular movement is trying to do. I think the name of the movement is a strong indication of the movements quality.

TockTockTock

I don't really see it as over-glorified. It's supposed to be a symbol.

As for the movement... while I disagree with its political standing, it has some legitimacy.

hip hop bunny hop

So, you're saying that White America decided to radically alter its society because... it felt guilty? I'd ascribe any and all moves done in this direction to realpolitik. To be brief:

1) The Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed because international pressure, particularly following The Year of Africa, made it politically unviable. The USA could not hope to maintain positive diplomatic relations with the resource-rich Subsaharan when its domestic policies humiliatied African diplomats, scholars and visiting statesmen. That this provided a strong recruitment tool for Communist parties and a great rhetorical tool for African Socialists can not be overstated.

2) It was made domestically palatable by the difficulty in enforcing the law; it's no accident that desegregation was followed by White Flight and massive privatization of public spaces and institutions. It has been often repeated that the Southern Strategy was made possible due to Dixiecrat resentment against the DNC. This is true, but what it fails to recognize the fact that Republican support for privatization dovetailed with Dixiecrat desire to maintain de facto segregation, as it is much more difficult to prove discrimination in regards to a private institution than a similar public institution. This is why Reagan announced his bid for election in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

3) Last, but most important, is the role violence played in actually ensuring black legal rights were respected. There's been a bunch of academic work on this lately, but "Blood Done Signed My Name" by Tyson is the most widely available I can think of. If you want source material, read "Seize the Time" by Bobby Seale.

Gee, here I thought Britain got out of India because the situation was spiralling out of control as the colony was rocked by spasms of ethnic and religious strife on a level thats truly hard to imagine, and that Britain - still reeling from the shock of WW2 - had little ability to suppress a popular revolt and lacked the will to do so.s

...but, no, I guess it's far more plausible they decided it wasn't a nice thing to do.

You dont' see support for open-border immigration policy, supporting legalization of all drugs, and a decidedly anti-Keynesian approach to economics as at all important or distinguishing?

TockTockTock

Civil rights in the south came to national attention due to the constant protests of African Americans during the 50's and 60's. Do I think that international pressure played apart? Maybe. But if you look at America's history, we really don't always give into international pressure very often (i.e. Congress's rejection of the U.S. entry into the U.N. during it's original formation and our "brilliant" Containment foreign policy during middle to later half of the 20th century). I always thought that it was the national pressure that was cultivated by the negative media attention towards the racism in the south. After all, while international influence can somewhat play a part in our foreign policy, I find that our own nation's influence plays a larger role in our domestic policy.

As for the peace demonstrations by Ghandi, it's ridiculous to discredit the amount of leverage that he held at that time and his influence over India's overall outcome. Do you honestly think that Great Britain would've lost their colonies in India if nobody stood up to them? Sure, there were ethnic/religious issues not only between the Britons and the Indians, but also amongst the Indians themselves (Hindu-Muslim collisions); and I certainly won't dismiss its impact on Great Britain's decision, but how is it even possible to say that Gandhi had little to no effect on his nation's future? Do you think you are in the position to discredit countless historians and scholars on this issue?

Lastly, those that you mentioned are still on the same side of the political spectrum (i.e. right-of- center). Libertarians just take the laissez faire approach to government to a much higher level than those of the Republican party. Also, the legalization of certain drugs is more of a social issue than a political/economic one (which is what I spoke about when I mentioned political ideology). Also, I always thought that the Republicans were "anti-Keynesian"? Especially now with this so-called conservative revolution. Again, you can assign labels and get in depth into philosophical differences, but they are still on the same side of the political spectrum.