The Democrats’ “Taming of the Shrew” strategy for American blacks


It’s all good, guys.  I’ve finally figured out what’s been going on.  We’ve just been reading history dead wrong.  The operating historic premise is that the KKK and the Democrat party parted ways during the Civil Rights movement.  When the KKK guys realized that northern Democrats who supported civil rights now owned the Democrat party, they walked out en masse and became Republicans.  That way, they were free to indulge openly in their hateful racism.

What really happened is something much more subtle.  The KKK guys became sleepers in the Democrat party.  Instead of attacking blacks head on with burning crosses and lynchings, they decided to use a mainstream political party as the engine by which they destroyed blacks.  As Petruchio did in The Taming of the Shrew, they set out to kill the blacks with kindness.  The degradation of American blacks under fifty years of ostensibly well-meaning Democrat social and economic policies isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

(Bear with me here, ’cause I’m on a roll.)

Despite the horrors of the Jim Crow South, not to mention the pervasive racism across America, blacks in America were actually showing steady, albeit slow, upward mobility.  When the government left them alone, blacks started colleges, grew businesses, got married, and had families.  Although they were poorer than whites, had more out-of-wedlock children than whites, and had more run-ins with the law than whites, they were moving towards a middle class model.  Undoubtedly, this trend could have continued and even accelerated with the passage of civil rights laws that banned discrimination.  (And it’s worth remember that the Civil Rights Act didn’t require affirmative federal action; it only banned discrimination.)

Frederick Douglas Do Nothing With Us

Whenever they were left alone, blacks in America proved that Frederick Douglas was right all along when he insisted that the best thing that America could do for blacks would be to leave them alone.

Here’s the interesting thing, though.  The moment that the Civil Rights movement seemed to have defeated Jim Crow, the Democrat party swung into action — and refused to leave blacks alone.  It gave them affirmative action, which meant that, for fifty years, blacks have been placed in jobs and schools where they cannot perform at the same level as other people (both whites and minorities) who achieved those positions on merit.  This gave blacks an inferiority complex, and created in non-blacks the false belief that blacks cannot achieve without a sizable handicap.

The Democrat party also did everything it could to ensure that blacks got government handouts, whether or not they wanted them.  Instead of being free people, blacks became junkies dependent on ostensibly “free” money.  It sapped initiative and pride.

Worse, welfare made men unnecessary.  Black women got a better deal from Uncle Sam, especially if they had lots of children.  Black men were reduced to the status of sperm donors.  (For many women, men who don’t bring in money are burdensome creatures who leave dirty laundry on the floor and forget to put down the toilet seat.)

With the new welfare status quo, sex for black men was easy, but their entire sense of their manhood was reduced to a biological level dependent on a single organ in their bodies.  They were no longer judged by their accomplishments, their earning ability, their status as community role models, or as helpmates and companion.  Black men were denied the opportunity to develop honor, loyalty, and morality.  Instead, instead, in the hierarchical world of men (and all men are, to a greater or lesser extent, hierarchical in how they view the world), the only measurements by which to judge black men was to look for the biggest gun, whether the man carried it gun in a holster or tuck it into his Calvin Klein whitey-tighties.

So we have a generation of black men who have been cheated of an education and a well-fitting job, whose children and family no longer need them as support, and whose lives revolve around their firing power.  It was inevitable that these socially and economically disenfranchised — men disenfranchised by a Democrat-enacted policy — would create a culture centered on themselves and their instant gratification.  The engines for achieving these ends have been alcohol, sex, drugs, and violence.  These are manly pursuits untempered by the steadying influence of women and children or by a culture that values men.

And what did the Democrats do when black men, as a result of Democrat policies, devolved into a lowest-common denominator culture?  They “forgave” them.  Instead of exhorting them to rise up, to embrace morality, decency, family, stability, work, accomplishments, and education, the Democrats assured the black men that what they were doing was okay.  “Oh, black men,” said the Democrats, “you are not masters of your destiny and captains of your fate.  You are the helpless flotsam and jetsam floating about aimlessly on the great ocean of Republican racism.  You can’t do anything about your lives and therefore you are not responsible for the harm you do, whether to yourselves, your families, your children, your community, or your country.”

It is a terrible thing that Democrats have done to blacks — and all ostensibly in the name of love.

And that’s when I realized what’s really been going on for all these decades:  the Democrats have achieved what the KKK set out to do.  Just like Petruchio in The Taming of the Shrew, they have succeeded in killing American blacks by kindness:


That is, to watch her, as we watch these kites
That bate and beat and will not be obedient.
She ate no meat today, nor none shall eat.
Last night she slept not, nor tonight she shall not.
As with the meat, some undeservèd fault
I’ll find about the making of the bed,
And here I’ll fling the pillow, there the bolster,
This way the coverlet, another way the sheets.
Ay, and amid this hurly I intend
That all is done in reverend care of her.
And, in conclusion, she shall watch all night,
And if she chance to nod I’ll rail and brawl,
And with the clamor keep her still awake.
This is a way to kill a wife with kindness,
And thus I’ll curb her mad and headstrong humor.
He that knows better how to tame a shrew,
Now let him speak; ’tis charity to show.
The Taming of the Shrew is a delightful and witty comedy.  We know that Kate and Petruchio are two headstrong people who must inevitably love one another, and we know too that Kate has lost control of herself and must be brought to heel, not just for her family’s well-being, but for her own.  That’s why we forgive the way Petruchio browbeats her under the guise of love and solicitude.
American blacks, however, are not Kate:  They are not women in the 16th century who must marry to survive and who must therefore be tamed.  It is unforgivable that the Democrat party has sought to kill them by kindness, not to uplift them and bring them to full equality, but instead to degrade and demoralize them.  This is not the act of a political party that welcomes blacks to the brotherhood of man.  This is the act of people who loathe blacks and want to ensure their continued poverty and debasement — which was pretty much the KKK’s plan from the get-go.


Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    Yes, yes, yes…and yes! 

  • Ymarsakar

    Excellent, Book.

  • Duchess of Austin

    Ha!  I’ve said something similar for years.  Black men were removed, by the Great Society, from the job of being providers for their families and reduced to mere sperm donors.  What do young men do, who have been absolved of having to provide for their families?  They get in trouble, because their energies are not channeled into productive vocations.
    Good on ya, Book.  You nailed it again.

  • Earl

    Best be sure your tax returns for the last 10 years are in order, BW…..

  • Charles Martel

    Classic racist spew designed to blame blacks for the GOP’s decades-long war against them! A war poor befuddled blacks could not have survived had it not been for infusions of materiel from the Democratic Party—food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, free childcare via the public school system, cheap abortions, quota hiring! At every turn the GOP has conspired to thwart the Demos’ brilliant version of Lend-Lease.
    But blacks are winning the war! A dusky complected man is president! The chief law enforcement officer of the country is dark! Barbara Lee and Charlie Rangel show America just how top-notch black politicos can be, and moral exemplars like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton provide wonderful role models for young black men. Oprah Winfrey shows young black women how sisterhood is powerful, especially when confronting naked Germanic racism in high-end boutique stores.
    You racist cons will be washed away by the powerful progressive tide of history! Hillary is in the wings, and mark my words: She will finish the job. All blacks will be liberated at last from racist white conventions about bastardy and paternity, as well as the evil white literary canon that does not understand the right-brain genius and talent of the Sun People. Viva Tupac, down with Shakespeare! Viva Che, death to Solzhenitsyn!
    I feel better now.

  • JKB

    Using the Taming of the Shrew to illustrate it is good, but the underlying revelation isn’t really new.  It is just something few are willing to face can none of those few are on the Left.  Perhaps that now that you, Book, can see it even from your perch in a relatively clean-cut Liberal enclave and with all the years of “belief” you had before you saw the light, there is hope that the realization will arrive.  Kind of an AA moment.
    It is a  wonder what emotion drives the Democrat in race relations.  Most try to associate racism with hatred but that doesn’t really fit.  To hate someone, you must hold them in some regard.  Disdain is probably more on point.  A simple low regard and definitely not equal.  We saw this with Obama in such things as Robert Dinero telling people Obama was trying his best.  Can you imagine someone saying that about of the previous Presidents (okay, maybe Carter) and not being castigated.  It certainly doesn’t illustrate respect for the individual it is said about but rather evokes pity.  
    Interesting, that this march from social subjugation (usually following slavery or virtual slavery) to government dependence as a path to destroying groups is not a U.S. phenomena.  I remember reading a story of a black man who had received the benefit of state support and now was alcoholic and perpetually unemployed.  Only he was an aboriginal in Australia.  His path resembling that of the North American aboriginals (Indians), but not without the similarities to what is done to the Black community.  And by the way, isn’t getting the Black community to adopt the African-American label a rather cagey way to reinforce being separate, not a part of the whole.  You don’t see any white Democrats adopting the European-American, English-America, etc. moniker.  Although the trick was used to little avail for the Irish-Americans.  
    So I think we should see these acts as acts of disdain.  The separation by label, the “poor, pitiful” government dependence, the efforts to create a culture of failure by accusing those trying to succeed of “acting white”, the constant rabble-rousing, all seem to fit under that emotion rather than hatred.  

  • Ymarsakar

    Don’t forget to tie in Robert KKK Byrd, a Senator for life Democrat.
    Also don’t forget to attach FDR’s President for life Status to the support he got from Democrats favoring discrimination and Jim Crow. FDR wasn’t going to rock that boat, but Japanese Americans had no political power, so that was okay.
    Segregation in the US military was almost entirely defeated by examples of blacks fighting with courage in WWII. That destroyed the label of the ignorant, rapist negro so many whites believed in, South or North.
    That’s why Democrats, never forget, don’t like poor blacks in the US military even now.
    Don’t ever forget to Smash the Left’s face in the truth, the truth they spent so many atrocities and crimes against humanity trying to cover up.

  • JKB

    Don’t forget the federal workforce was segregated by Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
    From a speech by Col. Ingersoll, late 1880s on Lincoln but laying out the politics right before the Civil War
    “Both of the great political parties 
    were controlled by greed and selfishness. Both 
    were the defenders and protectors of slavery. For 
    nearly three-quarters of a century these parties had 
    control of the Republic. The principal object of 
    both parties was the protection of the infamous in- 
    stitution. Both were eager to secure the Southern 
    vote and both sacrificed principle and honor upon 
    the altar of success. 
    “At last the Whig party died and the Republican 
    was born. This party was opposed to the further 
    extension of slavery. The Democratic party of the 
    South wished to make the “divine institution” 
    national while the Democrats of the North wanted 
    the question decided by each territory for itself. 
    Each of these parties had conservatives and ex- 
    tremists. The extremists of the Democratic party 
    were in the rear and wished to go back ; the ex- 
    tremists of the Republican party were in the front, 
    and wished to go forward. The extreme Democrat 
    was willing to destroy the Union for the sake of 
    slavery, and the extreme Republican was willing to 
    destroy the Union for the sake of liberty. 
    “Neither party could succeed without the votes of 
    its extremists. 
    “This was the condition in 1858-60. “

  • Ymarsakar

    One of the reasons why Jim Crow was instituted was because Democrats and their wealthy land owners believed that blacks being allowed to vote and blacks being elected to represent Southern states, was the result of Republicans (not specifically Northerners, because Northern Democrats were beloved as allies). So they thought blacks were not capable of learning and looking after themselves, they had to be controlled and “protected”. Southerners ate this up since most of them wouldn’t mistreat slaves and thought of them as family. They ate it up, they believed it.
    But it was just a way to deny the black man integrity and independence, forever tying them as slaves and tools to somebody else, Republicans if not Democrats.
    However, many whites and blacks in the South were able to work together, as more or less business equals, during Reconstruction. But those whites and those blacks had to be put down, as the general society had to see that blacks needed to be protected, from themselves and from political office. Even though a slave counted for a partial vote in terms of political control, the blacks could not be allowed to decide where that vote should go themselves. If Democrats cannot have the vote of the half man slave, then no one will. Their motivations and thoughts, exactly mirrored what was true of themselves, even as they accused Republicans of trying to puppet master ignorant blacks.
    Read the rhetoric from those days and you will see. The rhetoric hidden from American eyes for centuries.
    If WWII was an indirect continuation of WWI, then US Civil War II will be an indirect continuation of the First Civil War. When blacks say that the fight isn’t over after the civil rights era… they were right. But not as they meant it.

  • Ymarsakar

    Almost all of the South’s military leaders, who were sane, not corrupt, and would protect blacks or whites, males or females, were kept out of power. They were neutralized, for various number of reasons. Bedford Forest was one of those who believed that working with the North was the future, that the freedom of blacks should be supported and maintained given who won the war. This did not give him much political influence when the organization he helped created, the KKK, was hijacked by Democrats who had more popular ideas. Popular ideas that came from feeding on hate, anger, and bitterness over the war Democrats fing started and then lost. (Like Vietnam, same pattern)
    The person in charge of reconstruction in the beginning was a Democrat, not Lincoln or Grant. By the time Grant came on the scene, the South’s insurgency was already too powerful to defeat militarily or even politically. They controlled the region, Sherman and Sheridan was prevented from doing anything to protect the people they wanted to protect, and the KKK got to kill whomever they decided was a threat against the Regime.
    Democrats used the popularity of figure such as Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest to force 99% approval from Southerners, much as blacks today vote 95+% for Democrats only. If you do not… you don’t want to know what’ll happen to your reputation or your family if you live in a Democrat fiefdom. Being called an Uncle Tom will be the least of your worries. If anything went wrong, it was either the Northerner’s fault, Lincoln Tyrant’s fault, Sheridan’s fault, Sherman’s fault, or the fault of those Confederate weak kneed generals.
    It was ALWAYS somebody else’s fault that Southerners died during the Reconstruction, the economy never recovered, and violence was perpetual even after the war was over.

  • nuqlv9ol7u

    Most liberals/progressives/Democrats know little about the areas that are affected by the programs & policies they advocate. Many poor black areas have been devastated, but until you see it actually, it is hard to believe it is that bad. Both black and white poor folks are trapped in the tar pit of liberal social programs, but the advocates of these programs feel good about themselves.
    Rich white liberals never live in a neighborhood with more than 15% minority folks. when the “darkies” move in, they move out. There are few liberals who live on a block with more than two black families. Rich white liberals never send their children to schools with more than 15% minority students, and many of those minority students will be athletes.
    White liberals have “black friends” (usually one), but they never associate with more than one minority family. They do not invite their “black friends” to their children’s birthday parties, bbq, Christmas parties. Few white liberals know their “black friend’s” children’s names or birthdays, and they never send birthday or Christmas presents. The proper name for these “black friends” is co-worker.
    NOTE: A “black friend” is not stupid. They know they are being used, but in many cases it is easier “to go along, to get along.”
    Rich white liberals have designed their lifestyle to avoid as much minority contact as possible. Replacing “rich white liberal” with “poor white racist” would yield the same outcome.
    White conservatives are woefully ignorant of black folks especially the poor, but white liberals are just as ignorant. Once you understand the subject matter, you can engage in an argument without being called a racist. The truly fun part is when they try to get their “black friend” to disagree with you. Once their “black friend” knows that you understand the subject matter, the black guy/gal will have an honest debate with you, and the white liberal will fade away.

  • Ymarsakar

    I remember someone else moving out when the blacks move in.

  • nuqlv9ol7u

    If you are refering to me, you will need to do better than that.
    When I was younger, I listened to a lot of guys talking about what they would do. I decided to find out what the rough areas were like, and I moved to the worst areas. They were mostly black, but that is more due to warehousing the poor.
    I know what it is like to pass drug dealers and crack whores on the way home. Gunfire was a nightly occurrence, and this was before the police had helicopters patrolling. Actually, the police were as bad or worse than the criminals. I had a gun most of the time, but the only way to survive was to know how to handle yourself.
    I eventually moved out, but nothing has changed.
    I will put my street cred against anybody else’s. I have often offered to take a field trip with many big mouths, but they are better at talking. Any time, anywhere, any city, any country. I am still waiting for any takers.

  • nuqlv9ol7u

    I would also recommend that you stay out of prison. On the inside, you ain’t gonna be no double secret Ninja. You will be another punk washing your man’s dirty drawers. If you are white, the Brotherhood is not going to take you.

  • Danny Lemieux

    nuqlv9ol7u @ #7. You are right on the money!
    I think that a similar dynamic exists between white conservatives and white Liberals as that old saying about Southerners and Northerners views on race: “Northerners love blacks as a people, it’s individual blacks they don’t particularly care for, with Southerners, it’s the opposite”.
    I find that many white conservatives just don’t have enough actual experience interacting with black people but they will treat black people as people first, black secondarily: with Liberals, it’s the opposite.