The Southern Strategy.What I'm in the dark about is how conservatives are employing this principle to keep "minorities or any ethnic group in a state of poverty and chaos in order to control them." I agree with you that this would be an effective way of achieving that goal, but how, exactly, are they doing this?
HOW does the Southern Strategy DO that?
I think what this thread demonstrates is that some right wing people will selectively look at which party endorsed what and when while ignoring the last 50 years of racial relations in the US. One poster, presumably from Stormfront, keeps trying to shove this message into the thread: The Democrats are racist because of what they did in the 1950s and before. Well, alright. I'll bite and ask this question: What happened to all of those Southern Democrats? Well, if we are to follow many sources: They became Republicans. Many prominent Republicans even admitted to this fact:
RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes
So, long story short, as the Democrats started making gains with black voters, Republicans started exploiting racial tension in order to gain the silent (white) majority's vote. In essence, the opponents of racism have now become benefactors of it. They'll scream foul at the claim that they, as a party, would purposely engage in divide and conquer tactics to gain support. Except of course:"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
CNN.com - Bush calls for ban on same-sex marriages - Feb. 25, 2004
So how did a party that was basically known for this in the South:President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.
Become the leading party? Did Northern Liberals (the biggest supporters of ending slavery) suddenly move South while Southern Democrats moved up North? Nope. Republicans, unable to stop their losses in the North, turned to the South. The same region that supported slavery, Jim Crowe and segregation now supports ending welfare programs (that admittedly benefit blacks and hispanics far more).
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Secondly, and for the last time, I'll point out that advocacy for one group of people is not, by definition, advocating against any or all other groups. The NAACP advocates for, not against. Racism requires both a belief that one is different from and better than others based on race. If anything, the NAACP believes that black people are no different from and are just as good as all others. Advocating for equality is hardly racism.
Thirdly, your description of "affirmative action" as it relates to university admissions is actually racist. You claim that white applicants are more qualified for admission than black applicants that win placement - as I understand it, the policies require that all applicants be qualified for admission but that additional consideration is given to bringing into line the demographics of the student body with the demographics of the community it serves. It encourages minorities to apply for admission on the basis that they will be treated equally and fairly where in the past they may have been prejudicially handled.
Finally, I have to say, personally, as a conservative, I encourage any attempts to lift the socially and economically disadvantaged in order to help them become responsible, contributing members of society. I'd much rather give disadvantaged people a "hand up, rather than a hand out". Education is the number one way in which socially and economically disadvantaged people can improve their situation. Do you also object to university admissions policies that provide grants and scholarships to students who can't afford tuition? Clearly, if student one has to pay the full shot and student two gets a free or partially free ride, student one isn't receiving a benefit student two gets. In your view, student one is being discriminated against - in my view, the school is levelling the playing field for some deserving students who would otherwise miss out.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
On the other hand, one of the major nails in Yugoslavia's coffin was the rise of a nationalist Serb government that wanted to create an empire and get rid of everybody that wasn't a Serb. Which is exactly what you're talking about for us.