BTW,
For those of you who strongly advocate states rights and smaller government, do you think the CRA of 1964 could ever have happened if your vision for America had been in place?
Topic: Racism in America - page 2. (Read 3621 times)
"If I fail a semester of school, I am assured preferential treatment again based on my race.
The teachers were all racist, thats why I failed. Oh okay lets try this set of teachers.
My brain runs on the Binford(promoted by Tim the Toolman) 999 Kv battery. Hardly ever wears down."
Nothing in your post makes sense.But let's take a real example. I fly a plane in the War. I come home and I am unable to get a job in my field, when white pilots do. Should I protest, or accept that's the way things are and work as a shoe shine man/porter/handyman/dishwasher/butler/waiter? The teachers were all racist, thats why I failed. Oh okay lets try this set of teachers.
My brain runs on the Binford(promoted by Tim the Toolman) 999 Kv battery. Hardly ever wears down."
I guess I do not understand.
On the 50th anniversity of the CRA of 1964 that is plenty of credit to go around.
Republicans were mostly in Northern states then and their courage in acting was admirable. Democrats supported the bill with a majority but were unable to deliver votes from the South. So much so that after the bill passed many of them moved to the Republican Party in the South or lost their seats in congress.
The passage of the bill took compromise and courage, with many knowing their seats would be at risk. Yet they did the right thing.
So why can't we do the right thing and simply acknowledge that this was a good thing, a good decision, and a good law?
On the 50th anniversity of the CRA of 1964 that is plenty of credit to go around.
Republicans were mostly in Northern states then and their courage in acting was admirable. Democrats supported the bill with a majority but were unable to deliver votes from the South. So much so that after the bill passed many of them moved to the Republican Party in the South or lost their seats in congress.
The passage of the bill took compromise and courage, with many knowing their seats would be at risk. Yet they did the right thing.
So why can't we do the right thing and simply acknowledge that this was a good thing, a good decision, and a good law?
Immigrants should adjust to where they are residing rather than demanding the local to change law to fit their need.
Can always go back to their own country or move to another country if they are not happy here.
Can always go back to their own country or move to another country if they are not happy here.
"If I fail a semester of school, I am assured preferential treatment again based on my race.
The teachers were all racist, thats why I failed. Oh okay lets try this set of teachers.
My brain runs on the Binford(promoted by Tim the Toolman) 999 Kv battery. Hardly ever wears down."
The teachers were all racist, thats why I failed. Oh okay lets try this set of teachers.
My brain runs on the Binford(promoted by Tim the Toolman) 999 Kv battery. Hardly ever wears down."
So blacks were not ambitious ? that was the problem all along? Not because there were restrictions on who they were able to do business with, occupations they could have, places they could go. As long as they accepted and lived within the limitations they should have been able to prosper right?
But it still does not answer the question, of why whites did not fail because of programs that they were the beneficiaries of. Do you think you could tackle that one?
But it still does not answer the question, of why whites did not fail because of programs that they were the beneficiaries of. Do you think you could tackle that one?
Let's go back to my original question. Why did the benefits whites received not enable them to fail?
Mostly AA ones like you must have so many of this color. Hardly MLK's dream of color blindness. What benefits Zolace?......African-American veterans received significantly less help from the G.I. Bill than their white counterparts. ''Written under Southern auspices,'' he reports, ''the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow.'' He cites one 1940's study that concluded it was ''as though the G.I. Bill had been earmarked 'For White Veterans Only.' '' Southern Congressional leaders made certain that the programs were directed not by Washington but by local white officials, businessmen, bankers and college administrators who would honor past practices. As a result, thousands of black veterans in the South -- and the North as well -- were denied housing and business loans, as well as admission to whites-only colleges and universities. They were also excluded from job-training programs for careers in promising new fields like radio and electrical work, commercial photography and mechanics. Instead, most African-Americans were channeled toward traditional, low-paying ''black jobs'' and small black colleges, which were pitifully underfinanced and ill equipped to meet the needs of a surging enrollment of returning soldiers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/28KOTZL.html?pagewanted=all
So, why didn't such programs enable whites to fail?
Let's go back to my original question. Why did the benefits whites received not enable them to fail?
Mostly AA ones like you must have so many of this color. Hardly MLK's dream of color blindness. What benefits Zolace?......African-American veterans received significantly less help from the G.I. Bill than their white counterparts. ''Written under Southern auspices,'' he reports, ''the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow.'' He cites one 1940's study that concluded it was ''as though the G.I. Bill had been earmarked 'For White Veterans Only.' '' Southern Congressional leaders made certain that the programs were directed not by Washington but by local white officials, businessmen, bankers and college administrators who would honor past practices. As a result, thousands of black veterans in the South -- and the North as well -- were denied housing and business loans, as well as admission to whites-only colleges and universities. They were also excluded from job-training programs for careers in promising new fields like radio and electrical work, commercial photography and mechanics. Instead, most African-Americans were channeled toward traditional, low-paying ''black jobs'' and small black colleges, which were pitifully underfinanced and ill equipped to meet the needs of a surging enrollment of returning soldiers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/28KOTZL.html?pagewanted=all
So, why didn't such programs enable whites to fail?
Let's go back to my original question. Why did the benefits whites received not enable them to fail?
Mostly AA ones like you must have so many of this color. Hardly MLK's dream of color blindness. What benefits Zolace?......African-American veterans received significantly less help from the G.I. Bill than their white counterparts. ''Written under Southern auspices,'' he reports, ''the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow.'' He cites one 1940's study that concluded it was ''as though the G.I. Bill had been earmarked 'For White Veterans Only.' '' Southern Congressional leaders made certain that the programs were directed not by Washington but by local white officials, businessmen, bankers and college administrators who would honor past practices. As a result, thousands of black veterans in the South -- and the North as well -- were denied housing and business loans, as well as admission to whites-only colleges and universities. They were also excluded from job-training programs for careers in promising new fields like radio and electrical work, commercial photography and mechanics. Instead, most African-Americans were channeled toward traditional, low-paying ''black jobs'' and small black colleges, which were pitifully underfinanced and ill equipped to meet the needs of a surging enrollment of returning soldiers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/28KOTZL.html?pagewanted=all
So, why didn't such programs enable whites to fail?
Let's go back to my original question. Why did the benefits whites received not enable them to fail?
Mostly AA ones like you must have so many of this color. Hardly MLK's dream of color blindness. What benefits Zolace?......African-American veterans received significantly less help from the G.I. Bill than their white counterparts. ''Written under Southern auspices,'' he reports, ''the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow.'' He cites one 1940's study that concluded it was ''as though the G.I. Bill had been earmarked 'For White Veterans Only.' '' Southern Congressional leaders made certain that the programs were directed not by Washington but by local white officials, businessmen, bankers and college administrators who would honor past practices. As a result, thousands of black veterans in the South -- and the North as well -- were denied housing and business loans, as well as admission to whites-only colleges and universities. They were also excluded from job-training programs for careers in promising new fields like radio and electrical work, commercial photography and mechanics. Instead, most African-Americans were channeled toward traditional, low-paying ''black jobs'' and small black colleges, which were pitifully underfinanced and ill equipped to meet the needs of a surging enrollment of returning soldiers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/28KOTZL.html?pagewanted=all
So, why didn't such programs enable whites to fail?
Let's go back to my original question. Why did the benefits whites received not enable them to fail?
Mostly AA ones like you must have so many of this color. Hardly MLK's dream of color blindness. What benefits Zolace?Let's go back to my original question. Why did the benefits whites received not enable them to fail?
Mostly AA ones like you must have so many of this color. Hardly MLK's dream of color blindness. What benefits Zolace?......African-American veterans received significantly less help from the G.I. Bill than their white counterparts. ''Written under Southern auspices,'' he reports, ''the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow.'' He cites one 1940's study that concluded it was ''as though the G.I. Bill had been earmarked 'For White Veterans Only.' '' Southern Congressional leaders made certain that the programs were directed not by Washington but by local white officials, businessmen, bankers and college administrators who would honor past practices. As a result, thousands of black veterans in the South -- and the North as well -- were denied housing and business loans, as well as admission to whites-only colleges and universities. They were also excluded from job-training programs for careers in promising new fields like radio and electrical work, commercial photography and mechanics. Instead, most African-Americans were channeled toward traditional, low-paying ''black jobs'' and small black colleges, which were pitifully underfinanced and ill equipped to meet the needs of a surging enrollment of returning soldiers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/28KOTZL.html?pagewanted=all
So, why didn't such programs enable whites to fail?
Let's go back to my original question. Why did the benefits whites received not enable them to fail?
Mostly AA ones like you must have so many of this color. Hardly MLK's dream of color blindness. What benefits Zolace?
Let's go back to my original question. Why did the benefits whites received not enable them to fail?
I cannot count the times when I was in America that I was stopped by cops for driving while black. One time they were particularly solicitous for the welfare of my wife (who is blonde) while we were having a discussion about Derrida.
When progs change their minds it is called evolving. When cons do it it is called flip-flopping. Go figure .I'll bet you are just a shitty driver. This is where there is a disconnect.The Jews who came here found a way to make furniture and survived without Govt programs.Why weren't(aren't) blacks capable of producing something somebody else wants? Anything? There is no racism involved with a project like this. The people who sell wood only wanna make a sale. They don't care if you are from the moon.
I cannot count the times when I was in America that I was stopped by cops for driving while black. One time they were particularly solicitous for the welfare of my wife (who is blonde) while we were having a discussion about Derrida.
When progs change their minds it is called evolving. When cons do it it is called flip-flopping. Go figure .I'll bet you are just a shitty driver. I cannot count the times when I was in America that I was stopped by cops for driving while black. One time they were particularly solicitous for the welfare of my wife (who is blonde) while we were having a discussion about Derrida.
When progs change their minds it is called evolving. When cons do it it is called flip-flopping. Go figure .I'll bet you are just a shitty driver. I cannot count the times when I was in America that I was stopped by cops for driving while black. One time they were particularly solicitous for the welfare of my wife (who is blonde) while we were having a discussion about Derrida.
When progs change their minds it is called evolving. When cons do it it is called flip-flopping. Go figure .I'll bet you are just a shitty driver. I can't help but notice that they never complain about all of the white people on welfare, which outnumber blacks by huge numbers.
Why is that?
Why is that?
Most likely because people think US is build by Caucasian and hence it is ok for them to be on welfare while it is not ok for immigrant and black.
First off, US IS built by primarily and 90% european hands, and others took more than they offered by proportion. No one should try to deny this with racial agenda - US was and is a mianly european american affair, otherwise, it would not be American, period. Get the picture? You might as well ask the chinese to start wearing sari while calling themselves manchus otherwise.
The fact that this ignorance and painfully obvious ulterior motive of trying to advance a racially based agenda of minority bitch fest is being taken as some kind of balancing equalizer is truly pathetic. You may as well ask all the chinese to go jump in the yellow sea or ask the arabs to confine themselves to only saudi arabia in the middle east. America achieved in less than 250 years what many nations took thousands.
I give credit and acknowledgement to where they are due, and respect the achievements of those who made an impact.
Any one who does not acknowledge this fact is either a racially motivated mouthy ignorant, or simple fool who prefers to masturbate to ignorance of their own fantasies.
Are you so desperate that now you try to cajole and manipulate the sensitivities of 1st world nations for your painfully obvious ulterior motive that has nothing to do with social justice or equality? That boat sailed long ago and people who really deserved to have them will probably drag you in to the alley to be raped and shot.
Check your selves.
As for welfare statistics, blacks being less than 13 % of the population yet drawing almost 30to 40% of the welfare recipient is certainly a problem. If they were 13% as is proportional, maybe that would take away that talking point, but that is not the reality.
You have to be really stupid to think 'well white people number more in welfare' is some kind of an excuse. The country is 72% white, yet they make up less than that in welfare recipient statistics, while certain minorities make up disproporionate percentage of their share.
People have gone through far worse and ended up whole lot better in much less of a time than the so called 'ultimate' tragedy of american 'slavery' which is nothing compared to some real atrocities committed by those outside of US borders. In many ways people bitching about 'racism' in US to me seem to show the ultimate naked case of 1st world privilege. Is it that nice to be able to bitch and moan to your heart's content while riding along with 20k stereo and thumping childish rap music as if they prove your identity?
Get it together people. These are some really weak 1st world problems you are trying to make out to be a humanitarian crisis largely of their own making.
Good points.
Culture with issues should not drag their problems into first world and bring everyone else down to their level. Solve their own problems in their own land.
I can't help but notice that they never complain about all of the white people on welfare, which outnumber blacks by huge numbers.
Why is that?
Why is that?
Most likely because people think US is build by Caucasian and hence it is ok for them to be on welfare while it is not ok for immigrant and black.
First off, US IS built by primarily and 90% european hands, and others took more than they offered by proportion. No one should try to deny this with racial agenda - US was and is a mianly european american affair, otherwise, it would not be American, period. Get the picture? You might as well ask the chinese to start wearing sari while calling themselves manchus otherwise.
The fact that this ignorance and painfully obvious ulterior motive of trying to advance a racially based agenda of minority bitch fest is being taken as some kind of balancing equalizer is truly pathetic. You may as well ask all the chinese to go jump in the yellow sea or ask the arabs to confine themselves to only saudi arabia in the middle east. America achieved in less than 250 years what many nations took thousands.
I give credit and acknowledgement to where they are due, and respect the achievements of those who made an impact.
Any one who does not acknowledge this fact is either a racially motivated mouthy ignorant, or simple fool who prefers to masturbate to ignorance of their own fantasies.
Are you so desperate that now you try to cajole and manipulate the sensitivities of 1st world nations for your painfully obvious ulterior motive that has nothing to do with social justice or equality? That boat sailed long ago and people who really deserved to have them will probably drag you in to the alley to be raped and shot.
Check your selves.
As for welfare statistics, blacks being less than 13 % of the population yet drawing almost 30to 40% of the welfare recipient is certainly a problem. If they were 13% as is proportional, maybe that would take away that talking point, but that is not the reality.
You have to be really stupid to think 'well white people number more in welfare' is some kind of an excuse. The country is 72% white, yet they make up less than that in welfare recipient statistics, while certain minorities make up disproporionate percentage of their share.
People have gone through far worse and ended up whole lot better in much less of a time than the so called 'ultimate' tragedy of american 'slavery' which is nothing compared to some real atrocities committed by those outside of US borders. In many ways people bitching about 'racism' in US to me seem to show the ultimate naked case of 1st world privilege. Is it that nice to be able to bitch and moan to your heart's content while riding along with 20k stereo and thumping childish rap music as if they prove your identity?
Get it together people. These are some really weak 1st world problems you are trying to make out to be a humanitarian crisis largely of their own making.
Jump to: