Atwater explaining coded racial language
Full comment
> it's not hard to tell when someone is trying to slip the N-word Coded language like "states rights"[1][2] sill slips by a lot of people today. [1] link [2] this video
Exclusive: Lee Atwater's Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
590K views · Nov 13, 2012 · 1:40 · 0 HN recommenders · 3 mentions · discussed 2017–2022
A short audio clip of a 1981 interview in which Republican strategist Lee Atwater explains to a political scientist how the party could win racist voters without using overtly racist language. It was published by The Nation with analysis by Rick Perlstein.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN commenters cite it as a primary source for the Southern Strategy and coded racial language, in Atwater's own words.
“here is the southern Strategy in Lee Atwater’s own words.”HN comment, 2018
What Hacker News said 3
“here is the southern Strategy in Lee Atwater’s own words.”
Atwater describing the Southern Strategy in his own words
Full comment
Yes and after Lyndon Johnson - a Democrat signed the civil rights act, the south turned against the Democratic Party. But here is the southern Strategy in Lee Atwater’s own words. this video And you have heard of Strom Thurman haven’t you?
“Here's one from the mouth of Lee Atwater, the aforementioned strategist”
Primary source from Atwater on Southern Strategy
Full comment
> Lol I enjoy how often people on HN descend to personal attacks as opposed to discussion on the merits. Not a personal attack, it was just an observation. > You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns. I don't like the Democratic party either, but this ignores the party switch that occurred during the Nixon election. If you want to learn more about the Southern Strategy look up Barry Goldwater and Republican campaign strategist Lee Atwater. "States Rights" has traditionally been the rallying cry of racist regressives, regardless of party affiliation. > I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda. I don't like either mainstream US party, also you don't know anything about the history literature I consume. The primary sources I consume inform my views. Here's one from the mouth of Lee Atwater, the aforementioned strategist: this video > Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history. I have never read the 1619 project. I mostly read books written about the specific histories of commodities like lumber or tobacco or oil, but if you know anything about US history you understand why Slavery is so important and how it shaped our institutions and discourse. It's not "Marxist". But being so quick to dismiss a retelling of US history with slavery is a gi