She's the "Brown" in the landmark 1954 US Supreme Court case "Brown v. Board of Education" that integrated public schools, ruling that state legislated inequality, known then as "separate but equal" schools, were unconstitutional.

The governor of Kansas refused to accept the decision and used local police to keep Brown from attending the all-white elementary school nearest her home. President Eisenhower directed the National Guard to escort the girl into the school.

Despite the decision, it took many years for integration of public schools and all public institutions in the US to fully integrate.

The same "separate but equal" laws enacted by democrats... Jim Crow laws?

Asking for a friend. :-"

Yep... enacted by democrats who now vote republican. What's your point?

I'm asking about your point for a friend.... a pointy friend, who likes to bring up irrelevant links.

Dems love to say that, but it doesn't make it true.

Look at voting maps over time MACS.
1952, the entire country was red... except for the little corner encompassing the former slave states. that was solid blue.

You can watch it reverse, until now those same states are red, and the rest of the country is a mix of blue and red.

Do you think everyone who lived in the south and vote democrat moved to california or something?

Do you think everyone stays in the same place? Or maybe people who didn't vote now do? Or people friggin' died and new people are now voting?

To say that the democratic party went from trying to keep minorities down to suddenly loving all people of color, and in the same instance saying the republican party who has a history of supporting freedom suddenly switched ideologies is beyond fkin stupid.

History... did you read any of that in college, or did you focus on math and chemistry?

Saw the Tarantino movie about her... she was hot... 👍

I think it's funny that you think people moving from one place to another is of higher likelihood than a party changing its platform.

There's ample evidence.

Look at the democratic party platform in the 1800s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats 

Look at the "southern strategy" which caused the Republicans to change their base in the early 1900s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy 

If you follow those, and then look at the voting patterns, you can easily see that a shift in strategy by both groups, led to people voting differently.
Someone who voted democrat, and their kids they raised, suddenly found the republican platform more appealing. There wasn't a mass migration from the south to the north, or vice versa. (well, except for black voters who may have left the south).

How many people do you know in the south who brag about their long family history of living in california... until those damn democrats forced them out so they moved to Alabama? HAh.... we are talking about a part of the country with probably the lowest amount of migration... people who lived there have lived there a long time.

Doesn't sound like you took many American history classes:



In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

In academia, "southern strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South, which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white southerners' racial resentments in order to gain their support.[5] This top-down narrative of the southern strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed southern politics following the civil rights era.[6][7] This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy". This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South,[8] but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs, rather than overt resistance to racial integration, and that the story of this backlash is a national, rather than a strictly southern one.[9][10][11][12]

At the time of the Civil War, the South, with its large plantations and agriculture based on slave labor were the conservative pro-business staunch Christian Democratic Party.

Republicans of the North, like Lincoln, opposed slavery and were more socially progressive. The parties changed platforms during the early 20th century, when Teddy Roosevelt sought re-election.

This phenomena of the two parties changing platforms has occurred a few other times in history. The latest was the switch of southern Democrats to the Republican party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Seems the slave owners of the South passed on their attitudes towards slaves/blacks to subsequent generations. The sons and daughters didn't move en masse and were satisfied being Democrats until the Civil Rights era. They didn't like that the Democrats were viewed as supporters of diversity so they switched to the GOP.

Party alignment with conservatism and liberalism will prolly switch again some time in the future and my guess is that the honest voter will align with the party that more closely represents his/her values... as the Southern Democrats did in the 60's and 70's.

(edit: professors victor and banderl type faster than me and made the same points with greater emphasis on the reason for the shifts in party identification...)

Here's a relevant link to an article that describes the phenomena of party platform shifts in American history. Interesting read...

http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/ 

^That was interesting, Al. I liked seeing the color-coded maps, but I am still not completely convinced the parties flip flopped. That's presidential voting... much like Trump winning over Clinton, it doesn't mean much except one presidential candidate was less bad than the other.

Do people change their minds about issues? Of course. Do they completely abandon one ideology for another? I still don't think so, but it sure is an interesting discussion.

That's the point MACS. They didn't change their minds about issues. They didn't "completely abandon one ideology for another"/

You're mixing up the label for the ideology with the actual ideology.
The dem party used to advocate for one ideology. The repubs the other. Then the parties switched which ideologies they advocated.

The people themselves didn't change their minds about the issues, so they voted for different parties than they had in the past. The party which now advocated for the ideology they embraced.

Wasn’t Robert Byrd a life long Democrat?

YEA MACS!!!

good logic...

during his career, were southern Republicans bleeding hearts trying to reallocate hard earned dollars?

The group name says less than the men and women individually. JJ and others are clinging to ancient and misleading labels to escape currently owning the creeps.

I have a strong suspicion that if platforms changed again, where the Dem party adopted a platform that valued smaller government, low taxes, limited tax-paid social programs for the poor, pro-business, no regulations...

while the GOP embraced social equality, valued government regulations to control excess by big business, environmental protection, use of tax payer dollars to fund social programs, sought ways to narrow the inequality in wealth....


cons would become Dems and libs would become Reps...despite a lifetime of party identification...it's always been more about the platforms, party ideology and values than name identification...


Just ask the people in Brooklyn if they still love the Dodgers...they used to live and die wit da bums...now they are mostly dead...

It's funny to watch this get debated in here. Debating a fact because it doesn't fit your mold. We are in interesting times.

I shouldn't be surprised though. The party I have always seen as the adults, the sane, the conservatives thinking about our future, the law and order party, the party of respect (let the others attack personalities and people we will attack policy), etc are lead by Trump. My party is now on the same page with Trump and Rosanne. Makes me want to sing the national anthem with pride. I guess at least she didn't kneel during it.

Brown v Board has a pretty cool museum/memorial here. Interesting reading.

Thanks, tw, for paying your respects to an important figure in this great country's history...


I've always admired those who stood tall when confronting walls and waves of scorn and abuse, in the name of the ideals that make up this country's foundations.....most of us would choose to go along to get along...

Do you think the smart people of the time thought Linda Brown was just being manipulated and didn’t know as much as them?