An Example of How Past Government Policy Has Helped Whites Today

[Taz]

Read the Title of the Thread fool

I started the thread son. The OP is about the GI Bill. Not slavery. But since you ran your mouth.

Whites in America have benefitted from a series of consistent affirmative action programs starting on July 4th, 1776. Yet many whites have not seen it that way. It is difficult to review the history of this country and not come to that conclusion, but that is all part of the madness. When all the laws provide for your advancement based on race from the beginning of this country, there is no sane argument to be made by whites about the unfairness of considering race as a qualification for anything. It is just that simple.

The National Housing Act was a law passed by Congress and signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934. This law created the Federal Housing Administration or the FHA. The National Housing Act is the probably the policy that has the greatest impact on individual wealth accumulation in modern America. Unfortunately, the formation of the FHA and its guaranteed loan program only worked to increase white advantage. This law expanded the power of the federal government which helped it monitor the American economy. Many of today’s republicans complaining about how government expansion is wrong, benefitted by this government expansion.

I say this because the FHA able to create a guaranteed home loan program whereby potential home buyers could get bank loans guaranteed against default by the government. But the government had standards and most of those standards were based on racist beliefs.

Between 1934 to 1968, the FHA implemented and put into practice a policy called redlining. It began by publishing The Underwriting Manual which set the guidelines real estate agents used to assess the value and creditworthiness of different homes and neighborhoods. This manual promoted racist real estate practices by defending racially restrictive covenants and segregated communities. Due to this manual, the FHA was able to establish a neighborhood grading system based purely of false racist perceptions.

Redlining was the name of that grading system. Redlining has been well documented so there is no need for me to go into a long analysis of the policy. What I will say is that redlining was based on a premise of neighborhood decline caused by blacks that has never been proven. To this day blacks are accused of depreciating neighborhood values still without proof.

The Social Security Act of 1935 created the Social Security program, unemployment insurance administered by the states and assistance to single mothers with children. Today most Americans love the program. However, when the act was signed, the law was structured to exclude occupations that were mainly occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed the law, 65 percent of blacks in America were ineligible. So for years a majority of blacks were excluded from social security savings and could not get unemployment.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created the minimum wage and time and a half overtime pay for working over forty hours a week. Child labor was eliminated by this act. All these were good things but… This is the trouble with so many things in the history of America. There is always a but. Being imperfect, we all have buts and not just the ones we sit on. Yet in some cases the word but comes before critical facts that change how we see things. In this case, Roosevelt had to make a compromise with southern representatives in order to get the votes he needed. So he decided that industries where the majority of workers were black would be excluded from the regulations. Because of this, blacks were paid less than the minimum wage.

The issue goes far past slavery you dumb SOB. And we all have felt the effects of these policies.

Whites founded and established the US. Go start your own country and then you can have what you want. We can't judge yesterday by today's standards, things were different back then. Deal with it, because you ain't getting squat. My ancestors not only didn't have slaves, but also had nothing to do with the GI bill, Jim Crow, or any thing else like that.

Shut the fuck up. I will judge yesterday by the standards written in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Whites didn't found shit. And your ancestors benefitted from Jim Crow and every discriminatory policy this nation produced.

Whites built the US. Without Whites, you'd all be stuck in Africa, begging to come here, or still trying to swim to Europe. Whites also fought for and supported Blacks in their quest for freedom in the US. And now you have it, so stop all the whining, you ungrateful s.o.b.

I doubt that. But if you all had not run away from the shithole European countries you descend from, you'd still be a serf. Whites did not fight for us. We do not have to be grateful because some whites decided to do what was right.

This discussion is about government help that has been given to whites since slavery. I also mentioned our request for reparations based on the fact that blacks were not just denied because of slavery but to other policies since then that whites living now have benefitted from. What happened to Bessie Coleman happened after slavery. I am the OP here, you are not. So you don't determine what the context of the discussion here is.

Wow! You are really wrapped tight.

No, I am requiring whites here to stay on topic. Too often when black start threads here we get threads full of the shit taz is doing and it gets allowed until a person with responsibility uses the trolling as an excuse to close the thread just like the racists want done.

You’re just jealous that Blacks have a whole continent and couldn’t build one decent country.

 

[Taz]

And most of you benefitted from it.

On June 22, 1944 President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, better known as the G.I. Bill. This law provided benefits for veterans returning from the second World War. Funds were paid for college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance. As in every other program during this time southern congressmen fought passage of these laws unless there were provisions that limited access to blacks. The G.I Bill was no different.

Democratic congressmen in the south fought against provisions of the GI Bill out of fear that returning black veterans might be able to use public support for their war effort to advocate against Jim Crow laws. Southern Democrats using the same tactics they used to make certain other policies in the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible, wanted benefits to be administered by the states. Mississippi Congressman John Rankin was the ringleader in that regard]. He and other Southern Democrats knew doing that would allow southern states to do what each state had been doing since the Civil Rights Cases. That would be states implementing policies full of loopholes and restrictions that would be enforced on blacks but not whites thereby ensuring the GI Bill would primarily benefit whites. Congress gave southern Democrats what they wanted.

How African American WWII Veterans Were Scorned By the G.I. Bill

This Veteran's Day, remembering some of our veterans who protected a country that did not protect them.

progressive.org

How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans | HISTORY

The sweeping bill following World War II promised prosperity to veterans. So why didn’t Black Americans benefit?

www.history.com

Now before I have to hear you republicans sing that sad sorry lie about democrats, remember that republicans voted to give the southern democrats what they wanted. My father served in that war, he was from Louisiana and he did not get the benefits white soldiers got. This impacted my life and so when we speak about reparations, we're talking about policies like this and many others which came after slavery and do more so directly affect blacks living today.

Black veterans were a very small minority of the veterans that served in WWII. Much smaller numbers of black veterans naturally means that smaller numbers will receive GI benefits of any sort. Black veterans had the same rights to benefits as whites.
When have you ever had unequal rights?
Why should I accept blame for things I had nothing to do with and may be entirely imaginary in any case?
Pathetic whining about ancient history in an effort to get special privileges.

This is a bullshit excuse. Black veterans were denied. The information I posted is documented. It is not imaginary. You benefitted from the programs I have described. Again this thread is about special privileges whites have received.

And now Black veterans get the same thing, so stop your whining. Whites got it done for you, to make you equals, so it took some time. Bite me.

Now doesn't make up for the benefits that were lost. Blacks made this happen not whites. It should not have taken time. That's the point, pussy.

It’s a White country, they can take all the time they want. You don’t get to retroactively decide anything. Whites now made you equals, let’s all go forward.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

This discussion is about government help that has been given to whites since slavery. I also mentioned our request for reparations based on the fact that blacks were not just denied because of slavery but to other policies since then that whites living now have benefitted from. What happened to Bessie Coleman happened after slavery. I am the OP here, you are not. So you don't determine what the context of the discussion here is.

Wow! You are really wrapped tight.

No, I am requiring whites here to stay on topic. Too often when black start threads here we get threads full of the shit taz is doing and it gets allowed until a person with responsibility uses the trolling as an excuse to close the thread just like the racists want done.

POWERFUL!!!

You are sharp - you should be a moderator, and get this forum straightened out!

 

[IM2]

This nation was built on identity and this argument about individualism is an attempt to maintain identity advantage.

“ I posit that the Discourse of Individualism functions to: deny the significance of race and the advantages of being white; hide the accumulation of wealth over generations; deny social and historical context; prevent a macro analysis of the institutional and structural dimensions of social life; deny collective socialization and the power of dominant culture (media, education, religion, etc.) to shape our perspectives and ideology; function as neo-colorblindness and reproduce the myth of meritocracy; and make collective action difficult. Further, being viewed as an individual is a privilege only available to the dominant group. I explicate each of these discursive effects and argue that while we may be considered individuals in general, white insistence on Individualism in discussions of racism in particular functions to obscure and maintain racism.”

Robin DeAngelo​

Individualism when used in discussing race, discounts the effects of history. History cannot be ignored in any discussion of race. It denies the social structure created by racism. It refuses to accept that a dominant white culture was created due to the racist laws and policies denying people of color AS A GROUP. It removes the individual responsibility whites have to end racism in their community because “they are an individual and did not do it so find those who did,” is the attitude you get from whites who use individualism as a denial. Even more specifically, those who argue about individualism would have a case if racism was practiced in a way that harmed a few individuals while being done by just a few people. Racism is a macro level problem. Individualism is a micro level philosophy.

 

[IM2]

And most of you benefitted from it.

On June 22, 1944 President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, better known as the G.I. Bill. This law provided benefits for veterans returning from the second World War. Funds were paid for college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance. As in every other program during this time southern congressmen fought passage of these laws unless there were provisions that limited access to blacks. The G.I Bill was no different.

Democratic congressmen in the south fought against provisions of the GI Bill out of fear that returning black veterans might be able to use public support for their war effort to advocate against Jim Crow laws. Southern Democrats using the same tactics they used to make certain other policies in the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible, wanted benefits to be administered by the states. Mississippi Congressman John Rankin was the ringleader in that regard]. He and other Southern Democrats knew doing that would allow southern states to do what each state had been doing since the Civil Rights Cases. That would be states implementing policies full of loopholes and restrictions that would be enforced on blacks but not whites thereby ensuring the GI Bill would primarily benefit whites. Congress gave southern Democrats what they wanted.

How African American WWII Veterans Were Scorned By the G.I. Bill

This Veteran's Day, remembering some of our veterans who protected a country that did not protect them.

progressive.org

How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans | HISTORY

The sweeping bill following World War II promised prosperity to veterans. So why didn’t Black Americans benefit?

www.history.com

Now before I have to hear you republicans sing that sad sorry lie about democrats, remember that republicans voted to give the southern democrats what they wanted. My father served in that war, he was from Louisiana and he did not get the benefits white soldiers got. This impacted my life and so when we speak about reparations, we're talking about policies like this and many others which came after slavery and do more so directly affect blacks living today.

Black veterans were a very small minority of the veterans that served in WWII. Much smaller numbers of black veterans naturally means that smaller numbers will receive GI benefits of any sort. Black veterans had the same rights to benefits as whites.
When have you ever had unequal rights?
Why should I accept blame for things I had nothing to do with and may be entirely imaginary in any case?
Pathetic whining about ancient history in an effort to get special privileges.

This is a bullshit excuse. Black veterans were denied. The information I posted is documented. It is not imaginary. You benefitted from the programs I have described. Again this thread is about special privileges whites have received.

And now Black veterans get the same thing, so stop your whining. Whites got it done for you, to make you equals, so it took some time. Bite me.

Now doesn't make up for the benefits that were lost. Blacks made this happen not whites. It should not have taken time. That's the point, pussy.

It’s a White country, they can take all the time they want. You don’t get to retroactively decide anything. Whites now made you equals, let’s all go forward.

This has never been a white country. And we are going to decide this just as other races in this country retroactively decided things. This whole thing is about going forward. You are the one wanting to stay in the past.

 

[MizMolly]

A million African Americans joined the military during World War II as volunteers or draftees. Another 1.5 million registered for the draft. But when the war was over, many of those servicemen and women failed to receive their fair share of the benefits under the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 —the G.I. Bill.

Also known as the G.I. Bill Of Rights, the G.I. Bill provided financial support in the form of cash stipends for schooling, low-interest mortgages, job skills training, low-interest loans, and unemployment benefits.

But many African Americans who served in World War II never saw these benefits. This was especially true in the south, where Jim Crow laws excluded black students from “white” schools, and poor black colleges struggled to respond to the rise in demand from returning veterans. After World War II, blacks wanting to attend college in the South were restricted to about 100 public and private schools, few of which offered education beyond the baccalaureate and more than a quarter of which were junior colleges, with the highest degree below the B.A.

But those exclusions were by no means limited to states South of the Mason-Dixon line—or to education. Historian Ira Katznelson has documented how and why black Americans have received far less assistance from social programs than white Americans, and argues that the G.I bill was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow laws. He cites a study declaring it was “as though the GI Bill had been earmarked ‘For White Veterans Only.’ ”

Thousands of black veterans were denied admission to colleges, loans for housing and business, and excluded from job-training programs. Programs funded by federal money were directed by local officials, who especially in the south, drastically favored white applicants over black.

In 1947, some 70,000 African American veterans were unable to obtain admission to crowded, under-resourced black colleges. The University of Pennsylvania—one of the least-discriminatory schools at the time—enrolled only 40 African American students in its 1946 student body of 9,000.


The GI bill included support for banks to provide veterans low-cost, zero down-payment home loans across the United States. But of the first 67,000 mortgages secured by the G.I. Bill for returning veterans in New York and northern New Jersey alone, fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites. The G.I. Bill helped place 6,500 former soldiers in Mississippi on nonfarm jobs by fall of 1947, but while 86 percent of the skilled and semiskilled jobs were filled by whites, 92 percent of the unskilled ones were filled by blacks.

In all, 16 million veterans benefited in various ways from the G.I. Bill. President Bill Clinton declared it “the best deal ever made by Uncle Sam,” adding that it “helped to unleash a prosperity never before known.”

For white people, that is. The lack of access to a family home meant a long-term loss of wealth for black Americans. A family home purchased in 1946 in a good neighborhood with a strong tax base and solid schools, became financial wealth to pass onto family members, borrow against to start a business, or to send kids to college.

How African American WWII Veterans Were Scorned By the G.I. Bill

This Veteran's Day, remembering some of our veterans who protected a country that did not protect them.

progressive.org

My father never received benefits either.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Even more specifically, those who argue about individualism would have a case if racism was practiced in a way that harmed a few individuals while being done by just a few people. Racism is a macro level problem. Individualism is a micro level philosophy.

My argument is that the government is the macro level that needs to be reordered, yet, the contemporary most brilliant Black people, like you, do not seem to want to participate in the reordering. You are pretty much, demanding, that White Supremacists need to do it.

Am I correct? You want White people to do the paper work - right?

 

[MizMolly]

Read the Title of the Thread fool

I started the thread son. The OP is about the GI Bill. Not slavery. But since you ran your mouth.

Whites in America have benefitted from a series of consistent affirmative action programs starting on July 4th, 1776. Yet many whites have not seen it that way. It is difficult to review the history of this country and not come to that conclusion, but that is all part of the madness. When all the laws provide for your advancement based on race from the beginning of this country, there is no sane argument to be made by whites about the unfairness of considering race as a qualification for anything. It is just that simple.

The National Housing Act was a law passed by Congress and signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934. This law created the Federal Housing Administration or the FHA. The National Housing Act is the probably the policy that has the greatest impact on individual wealth accumulation in modern America. Unfortunately, the formation of the FHA and its guaranteed loan program only worked to increase white advantage. This law expanded the power of the federal government which helped it monitor the American economy. Many of today’s republicans complaining about how government expansion is wrong, benefitted by this government expansion.

I say this because the FHA able to create a guaranteed home loan program whereby potential home buyers could get bank loans guaranteed against default by the government. But the government had standards and most of those standards were based on racist beliefs.

Between 1934 to 1968, the FHA implemented and put into practice a policy called redlining. It began by publishing The Underwriting Manual which set the guidelines real estate agents used to assess the value and creditworthiness of different homes and neighborhoods. This manual promoted racist real estate practices by defending racially restrictive covenants and segregated communities. Due to this manual, the FHA was able to establish a neighborhood grading system based purely of false racist perceptions.

Redlining was the name of that grading system. Redlining has been well documented so there is no need for me to go into a long analysis of the policy. What I will say is that redlining was based on a premise of neighborhood decline caused by blacks that has never been proven. To this day blacks are accused of depreciating neighborhood values still without proof.

The Social Security Act of 1935 created the Social Security program, unemployment insurance administered by the states and assistance to single mothers with children. Today most Americans love the program. However, when the act was signed, the law was structured to exclude occupations that were mainly occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed the law, 65 percent of blacks in America were ineligible. So for years a majority of blacks were excluded from social security savings and could not get unemployment.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created the minimum wage and time and a half overtime pay for working over forty hours a week. Child labor was eliminated by this act. All these were good things but… This is the trouble with so many things in the history of America. There is always a but. Being imperfect, we all have buts and not just the ones we sit on. Yet in some cases the word but comes before critical facts that change how we see things. In this case, Roosevelt had to make a compromise with southern representatives in order to get the votes he needed. So he decided that industries where the majority of workers were black would be excluded from the regulations. Because of this, blacks were paid less than the minimum wage.

The issue goes far past slavery you dumb SOB. And we all have felt the effects of these policies.

Whites founded and established the US. Go start your own country and then you can have what you want. We can't judge yesterday by today's standards, things were different back then. Deal with it, because you ain't getting squat. My ancestors not only didn't have slaves, but also had nothing to do with the GI bill, Jim Crow, or any thing else like that.

Shut the fuck up. I will judge yesterday by the standards written in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Whites didn't found shit. And your ancestors benefitted from Jim Crow and every discriminatory policy this nation produced.

Bullspit! Past racism doesn't doesn't justify your present racism. Becoming racist puts the lie to your claim to be against it.

I have no present racism. You are using the default tactic white racists use when evidence is presented that shows everything they whine about others getting actually have only been given to them.

You claim, but fail to show, evidence. If you believe, as you apparently do, that your race deserves things that the other races do not because of that race you are a racist no matter what color you are. Black Americans have had things much better than blacks in Africa, are you planning to pay them reparations? How about American Indians? How about all the whites that died to free the slaves? If you think anybody is going to give you money because somebody else might have done something to somebody you never even met sometime in the past, you are an idiot.

Oh yes, I have proven it. American Indians get reparations annually. Whites did not die to free the slaves and those whites benefitted from racially discriminatory laws and policies. It is apparent you are ignorant relative to this topic and so why don't you read these books;

1. American Aparthied
2. Color of Law
3. White Rage
4. When Affirmative Action was White
5. Racism Without Racists
6. The New Jim Crow

After you have done this, we can have a better discussion on this subject.

You are delusional. Whites certainly did die to free the slaves.

 

[MizMolly]

And most of you benefitted from it.

On June 22, 1944 President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, better known as the G.I. Bill. This law provided benefits for veterans returning from the second World War. Funds were paid for college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance. As in every other program during this time southern congressmen fought passage of these laws unless there were provisions that limited access to blacks. The G.I Bill was no different.

Democratic congressmen in the south fought against provisions of the GI Bill out of fear that returning black veterans might be able to use public support for their war effort to advocate against Jim Crow laws. Southern Democrats using the same tactics they used to make certain other policies in the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible, wanted benefits to be administered by the states. Mississippi Congressman John Rankin was the ringleader in that regard]. He and other Southern Democrats knew doing that would allow southern states to do what each state had been doing since the Civil Rights Cases. That would be states implementing policies full of loopholes and restrictions that would be enforced on blacks but not whites thereby ensuring the GI Bill would primarily benefit whites. Congress gave southern Democrats what they wanted.

How African American WWII Veterans Were Scorned By the G.I. Bill

This Veteran's Day, remembering some of our veterans who protected a country that did not protect them.

progressive.org

How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans | HISTORY

The sweeping bill following World War II promised prosperity to veterans. So why didn’t Black Americans benefit?

www.history.com

Now before I have to hear you republicans sing that sad sorry lie about democrats, remember that republicans voted to give the southern democrats what they wanted. My father served in that war, he was from Louisiana and he did not get the benefits white soldiers got. This impacted my life and so when we speak about reparations, we're talking about policies like this and many others which came after slavery and do more so directly affect blacks living today.

Black veterans were a very small minority of the veterans that served in WWII. Much smaller numbers of black veterans naturally means that smaller numbers will receive GI benefits of any sort. Black veterans had the same rights to benefits as whites.
When have you ever had unequal rights?
Why should I accept blame for things I had nothing to do with and may be entirely imaginary in any case?
Pathetic whining about ancient history in an effort to get special privileges.

This is a bullshit excuse. Black veterans were denied. The information I posted is documented. It is not imaginary. You benefitted from the programs I have described. Again this thread is about special privileges whites have received.

And now Black veterans get the same thing, so stop your whining. Whites got it done for you, to make you equals, so it took some time. Bite me.

Now doesn't make up for the benefits that were lost. Blacks made this happen not whites. It should not have taken time. That's the point, pussy.

It’s a White country, they can take all the time they want. You don’t get to retroactively decide anything. Whites now made you equals, let’s all go forward.

This has never been a white country. And we are going to decide this just as other races in this country retroactively decided things. This whole thing is about going forward. You are the one wanting to stay in the past.

You constantly whine about past injustices on blacks. You constantly copy and paste old information on things from history that are not relevant today.

 

[9thIDdoc]

And most of you benefitted from it.

On June 22, 1944 President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, better known as the G.I. Bill. This law provided benefits for veterans returning from the second World War. Funds were paid for college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance. As in every other program during this time southern congressmen fought passage of these laws unless there were provisions that limited access to blacks. The G.I Bill was no different.

Democratic congressmen in the south fought against provisions of the GI Bill out of fear that returning black veterans might be able to use public support for their war effort to advocate against Jim Crow laws. Southern Democrats using the same tactics they used to make certain other policies in the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible, wanted benefits to be administered by the states. Mississippi Congressman John Rankin was the ringleader in that regard]. He and other Southern Democrats knew doing that would allow southern states to do what each state had been doing since the Civil Rights Cases. That would be states implementing policies full of loopholes and restrictions that would be enforced on blacks but not whites thereby ensuring the GI Bill would primarily benefit whites. Congress gave southern Democrats what they wanted.

How African American WWII Veterans Were Scorned By the G.I. Bill

This Veteran's Day, remembering some of our veterans who protected a country that did not protect them.

progressive.org

How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans | HISTORY

The sweeping bill following World War II promised prosperity to veterans. So why didn’t Black Americans benefit?

www.history.com

Now before I have to hear you republicans sing that sad sorry lie about democrats, remember that republicans voted to give the southern democrats what they wanted. My father served in that war, he was from Louisiana and he did not get the benefits white soldiers got. This impacted my life and so when we speak about reparations, we're talking about policies like this and many others which came after slavery and do more so directly affect blacks living today.

Black veterans were a very small minority of the veterans that served in WWII. Much smaller numbers of black veterans naturally means that smaller numbers will receive GI benefits of any sort. Black veterans had the same rights to benefits as whites.
When have you ever had unequal rights?
Why should I accept blame for things I had nothing to do with and may be entirely imaginary in any case?
Pathetic whining about ancient history in an effort to get special privileges.

This is a bullshit excuse. Black veterans were denied. The information I posted is documented. It is not imaginary. You benefitted from the programs I have described. Again this thread is about special privileges whites have received.

And now Black veterans get the same thing, so stop your whining. Whites got it done for you, to make you equals, so it took some time. Bite me.

Now doesn't make up for the benefits that were lost. Blacks made this happen not whites. It should not have taken time. That's the point, pussy.

If-as stated- the GI Bill benefits requirements were the same for black and white, no benefits were lost.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

ONLY 2% OF LIVING AMERICANS HAD ANCESTORS INVOLVED IN THE SLAVE TRADE

2 PERCENT

And this thread had 100 percent of nothing to do with slavery.

0 percent.

For the truly racist white person, they always want to use that dumb ass excuse. Except when they try telling us how only democrats had slaves therefore they can be held accountable for something nobody today had anything to do with.

It's really hard to follow your butthurt bullshit.

We know that blacks were discriminated against....at all levels.

What is your problem ?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And most of you benefitted from it.

On June 22, 1944 President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, better known as the G.I. Bill. This law provided benefits for veterans returning from the second World War. Funds were paid for college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance. As in every other program during this time southern congressmen fought passage of these laws unless there were provisions that limited access to blacks. The G.I Bill was no different.

Democratic congressmen in the south fought against provisions of the GI Bill out of fear that returning black veterans might be able to use public support for their war effort to advocate against Jim Crow laws. Southern Democrats using the same tactics they used to make certain other policies in the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible, wanted benefits to be administered by the states. Mississippi Congressman John Rankin was the ringleader in that regard]. He and other Southern Democrats knew doing that would allow southern states to do what each state had been doing since the Civil Rights Cases. That would be states implementing policies full of loopholes and restrictions that would be enforced on blacks but not whites thereby ensuring the GI Bill would primarily benefit whites. Congress gave southern Democrats what they wanted.

How African American WWII Veterans Were Scorned By the G.I. Bill

This Veteran's Day, remembering some of our veterans who protected a country that did not protect them.

progressive.org

How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans | HISTORY

The sweeping bill following World War II promised prosperity to veterans. So why didn’t Black Americans benefit?

www.history.com

Now before I have to hear you republicans sing that sad sorry lie about democrats, remember that republicans voted to give the southern democrats what they wanted. My father served in that war, he was from Louisiana and he did not get the benefits white soldiers got. This impacted my life and so when we speak about reparations, we're talking about policies like this and many others which came after slavery and do more so directly affect blacks living today.

You have the saddest life.

 

[9thIDdoc]

This nation was built on identity and this argument about individualism is an attempt to maintain identity advantage.

“ I posit that the Discourse of Individualism functions to: deny the significance of race and the advantages of being white; hide the accumulation of wealth over generations; deny social and historical context; prevent a macro analysis of the institutional and structural dimensions of social life; deny collective socialization and the power of dominant culture (media, education, religion, etc.) to shape our perspectives and ideology; function as neo-colorblindness and reproduce the myth of meritocracy; and make collective action difficult. Further, being viewed as an individual is a privilege only available to the dominant group. I explicate each of these discursive effects and argue that while we may be considered individuals in general, white insistence on Individualism in discussions of racism in particular functions to obscure and maintain racism.”

Robin DeAngelo​

Individualism when used in discussing race, discounts the effects of history. History cannot be ignored in any discussion of race. It denies the social structure created by racism. It refuses to accept that a dominant white culture was created due to the racist laws and policies denying people of color AS A GROUP. It removes the individual responsibility whites have to end racism in their community because “they are an individual and did not do it so find those who did,” is the attitude you get from whites who use individualism as a denial. Even more specifically, those who argue about individualism would have a case if racism was practiced in a way that harmed a few individuals while being done by just a few people. Racism is a macro level problem. Individualism is a micro level philosophy.

What an idiotic BS communistic/racist rant. Presented without any evidence of truth what-so-ever. Equality is all about individual equality under the law in America. If that isn't good enough for you perhaps you should consider moving to a racist black dominant Country like South Africa.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

We are done being lectured like slow witted children. YOu have shit to say? Too bad, it is our turn. We have more shit to say and we have been waiting longer.

View attachment 364624

You called me names, I called you names back. You seem to think that was me being in the wrong. That is you dishing it out, and not being able to take it.


Such people in my culture, are not respected.


You don't want to talk to me? Put me on ignore. But know that all the other readers will see me as I point out the many, many flaws in your logic, and you do not even try to refute them.


Because you can't.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I started the thread son. The OP is about the GI Bill. Not slavery. But since you ran your mouth.

Whites in America have benefitted from a series of consistent affirmative action programs starting on July 4th, 1776. Yet many whites have not seen it that way. It is difficult to review the history of this country and not come to that conclusion, but that is all part of the madness. When all the laws provide for your advancement based on race from the beginning of this country, there is no sane argument to be made by whites about the unfairness of considering race as a qualification for anything. It is just that simple.

The National Housing Act was a law passed by Congress and signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934. This law created the Federal Housing Administration or the FHA. The National Housing Act is the probably the policy that has the greatest impact on individual wealth accumulation in modern America. Unfortunately, the formation of the FHA and its guaranteed loan program only worked to increase white advantage. This law expanded the power of the federal government which helped it monitor the American economy. Many of today’s republicans complaining about how government expansion is wrong, benefitted by this government expansion.

I say this because the FHA able to create a guaranteed home loan program whereby potential home buyers could get bank loans guaranteed against default by the government. But the government had standards and most of those standards were based on racist beliefs.

Between 1934 to 1968, the FHA implemented and put into practice a policy called redlining. It began by publishing The Underwriting Manual which set the guidelines real estate agents used to assess the value and creditworthiness of different homes and neighborhoods. This manual promoted racist real estate practices by defending racially restrictive covenants and segregated communities. Due to this manual, the FHA was able to establish a neighborhood grading system based purely of false racist perceptions.

Redlining was the name of that grading system. Redlining has been well documented so there is no need for me to go into a long analysis of the policy. What I will say is that redlining was based on a premise of neighborhood decline caused by blacks that has never been proven. To this day blacks are accused of depreciating neighborhood values still without proof.

The Social Security Act of 1935 created the Social Security program, unemployment insurance administered by the states and assistance to single mothers with children. Today most Americans love the program. However, when the act was signed, the law was structured to exclude occupations that were mainly occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed the law, 65 percent of blacks in America were ineligible. So for years a majority of blacks were excluded from social security savings and could not get unemployment.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created the minimum wage and time and a half overtime pay for working over forty hours a week. Child labor was eliminated by this act. All these were good things but… This is the trouble with so many things in the history of America. There is always a but. Being imperfect, we all have buts and not just the ones we sit on. Yet in some cases the word but comes before critical facts that change how we see things. In this case, Roosevelt had to make a compromise with southern representatives in order to get the votes he needed. So he decided that industries where the majority of workers were black would be excluded from the regulations. Because of this, blacks were paid less than the minimum wage.

The issue goes far past slavery you dumb SOB. And we all have felt the effects of these policies.

You are entitled to equality under the law. You are not entitled to equal treatment by people except as stated by the law. People may be prejudiced against you for any number of reasons many of which have nothing to do with race. Thinking you are special because of your race and should be given tax money not available to other races makes you at least as racist as anyone from the past that you are complaining about.

This thread is about special treatment whites have been given by the government. You pay tax money to Native Americans annually. We payed Jews reparations for WW2 and we did nothing to them. Asians got reparations. It is apparent than you have not studied the issue of reparations.

No this thread has made has made all sorts of claims and has proven none. WWII era standards for the GI benefits were the same for both black and white.

"... While the GI Bill’s language did not specifically exclude African-American veterans from its benefits, it was structured in a way that ultimately shut doors for the 1.2 million Black veterans who had bravely served their country during World War II, in segregated ranks.​

​

Fear of Black Advancement​

When lawmakers began drafting the GI Bill in 1944, some Southern Democrats feared that returning Black veterans would use public sympathy for veterans to advocate against Jim Crow laws. To make sure the GI Bill largely benefited white people, the southern Democrats drew on tactics they had previously used to ensure that the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible.​

​

During the drafting of the law, the chair of the House Veterans Committee, Mississippi Congressman John Rankin, played hardball and insisted that the program be administered by individual states instead of the federal government. He got his way. Rankin was known for his virulent racism: He defended segregation, opposed interracial marriage, and had even proposed legislation to confine, then deport, every person with Japanese heritage during World War II.​

​

When the bill came to a committee vote, he stonewalled in an attempt to gut another provision that entitled all veterans to $20 a week of unemployment compensation for a year. Rankin knew this would represent a significant gain for Black Southerners, so he refused to cast a critical proxy vote in protest. The American Legion ended up tracking down the Congressman who had left his proxy vote with Rankin and flying him to Washington to break the deadlock.​

​

Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act into law on June 22, 1944, only weeks after the D-Day offensive began. It ushered into law sweeping benefits for veterans, including college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance.​

​

The GI Bill’s Effect on Black Veterans​

From the start, Black veterans had trouble securing the GI Bill’s benefits. Some could not access benefits because they had not been given an honorable discharge—and a much larger number of Black veterans were discharged dishonorably than their white counterparts.​

​

Veterans who did qualify could not find facilities that delivered on the bill’s promise. Black veterans in a vocational training program at a segregated high school in Indianapolis were unable to participate in activities related to plumbing, electricity and printing because adequate equipment was only available to white students.​

​

Simple intimidation kept others from enjoying GI Bill benefits. In 1947, for example, a crowd hurled rocks at Black veterans as they moved into a Chicago housing development. Thousands of Black veterans were attacked in the years following World War II and some were singled out and lynched.​

​

Though Rankin had lost the battle to exclude Black men from VA unemployment insurance, it was doled out inequitably. Men who applied for unemployment benefits were kicked out of the program if any other work was available to them, even work that provided less than subsistence wages. Southern postmasters were even accused of refusing to deliver the forms Black veterans needed to fill out to receive their unemployment benefits.​

​

Black veterans’ and civil rights groups protested their treatment, calling for protections like Black involvement in the VA and non-discriminatory loans, but the racial disparities in the implementation of the GI Bill had already been set into motion. As the years went on, white veterans flowed into newly created suburbs, where they began amassing wealth in skilled positions. But Black veterans lacked those options. The majority of skilled jobs were given to white workers.​

​

A White Post-War Housing Boom—And Redlining in Black Neighborhoods​

The postwar housing boom almost entirely excluded Black Americans, most of whom remained in cities that received less and less investment from businesses and banks.​

​

Though the GI Bill guaranteed low-interest mortgages and other loans, they were not administered by the VA itself. Thus, the VA could cosign, but not actually guarantee the loans. This gave white-run financial institutions free reign to refuse mortgages and loans to Black people.​

​

Redlining—a decades-old practice of marking maps by race to characterize the risks of lending money and providing insurance—made purchasing a home even more difficult for Black veterans. Lenders froze out poorer neighborhoods, ensuring that loan assistance and insurance would be denied. And new white suburbs often came with overtly racist covenants that denied entry to Black people.​

​

In 1947, only 2 of the more than 3,200 VA-guaranteed home loans in 13 Mississippi cities went to Black borrowers. “These impediments were not confined to the South,” notes historian Ira Katznelson. “In New York and the northern New Jersey suburbs, fewer than 100 of the 67,000 mortgages insured by the GI bill supported home purchases by non-whites.”​

​

Failure to Receive GI Bill Education Benefits​

Black veterans in search of the education they had been guaranteed fared no better. Many Black men returning home from the war didn’t even try to take advantage of the bill’s educational benefits—they could not afford to spend time in school instead of working. But those who did were at a considerable disadvantage compared to their white counterparts. Public education provided poor preparation for Black students, and many lacked much educational attainment at all due to poverty and social pressures.​

​

As veteran applications flooded universities, Black students often found themselves left out. Northern universities dragged their feet when it came to admitting Black students, and Southern colleges barred Black students entirely. And the VA itself encouraged Black veterans to apply for vocational training instead of university admission and arbitrarily denied educational benefits to some students.​

​

Those students who did try to attend college found doors closed at every turn. A full 95 percent of Black veterans were shunted off to Black colleges—institutions that were underfunded and overwhelmed by the influx of new students. Most were unaccredited, and with a massive influx in applicants, they had to turn away tens of thousands of veterans.​

​

“Though Congress granted all soldiers the same benefits theoretically,” writes historian Hilary Herbold, “the segregationist principles of almost every institution of higher learning effectively disbarred a huge proportion of Black veterans from earning a college degree.”​

​

The GI Bill and the Racial Wealth Gap

The original GI Bill ended in July 1956. By that time, nearly 8 million World War II veterans had received education or training, and 4.3 million home loans worth $33 billion had been handed out. But most Black veterans had been left behind. As employment, college attendance and wealth surged for whites, disparities with their Black counterparts not only continued, but widened. There was, writes Katznelson, “no greater instrument for widening an already huge racial gap in postwar America than the GI Bill.”​

​

Today, a stark wealth gap between Black and white Americans persists. The median income for white households in 2017 was $68,145, according to the U.S. Census. For Black households, it was $40,258. "​

How the GI Bill's Promise Was Denied to a Million Black WWII Veterans​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

This nation was built on identity and this argument about individualism is an attempt to maintain identity advantage.

“ I posit that the Discourse of Individualism functions to: deny the significance of race and the advantages of being white; hide the accumulation of wealth over generations; deny social and historical context; prevent a macro analysis of the institutional and structural dimensions of social life; deny collective socialization and the power of dominant culture (media, education, religion, etc.) to shape our perspectives and ideology; function as neo-colorblindness and reproduce the myth of meritocracy; and make collective action difficult. Further, being viewed as an individual is a privilege only available to the dominant group. I explicate each of these discursive effects and argue that while we may be considered individuals in general, white insistence on Individualism in discussions of racism in particular functions to obscure and maintain racism.”

Robin DeAngelo​

Individualism when used in discussing race, discounts the effects of history. History cannot be ignored in any discussion of race. It denies the social structure created by racism. It refuses to accept that a dominant white culture was created due to the racist laws and policies denying people of color AS A GROUP. It removes the individual responsibility whites have to end racism in their community because “they are an individual and did not do it so find those who did,” is the attitude you get from whites who use individualism as a denial. Even more specifically, those who argue about individualism would have a case if racism was practiced in a way that harmed a few individuals while being done by just a few people. Racism is a macro level problem. Individualism is a micro level philosophy.

What an idiotic BS communistic/racist rant. Presented without any evidence of truth what-so-ever. Equality is all about individual equality under the law in America. If that isn't good enough for you perhaps you should consider moving to a racist black dominant Country like South Africa.

"A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union

​

"[snipped]​

...Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. [snipped]​

​

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. [snipped]​

​

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.​

​

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States."​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Negative. Individuals have rights. Identities do not. Hate crimes and what not are only there to show "WHY" someone did something. It is especially heinous when someone commits a crime out of prejudice and bigotry. It has nothing to do with the identity itself. They are there to show that it's highly likely the person in question is not logical, and need extra time or perhaps education in which to regain their ability to come back to normal society.

"The Codification of Racism: Blacks, Criminal Sentencing, and the Legacy of Slavery in Georgia​

Date Written: February 17, 2009​

​

Abstract

The passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 made the defeat of the southern Confederate army by the northern Union forces final and binding. It reads simply that: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof a party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction." The 13th Amendment memorialized the efforts of slaves, free persons of color, and other abolitionists to bring about freedom and equality. While it was a blessing for free people of color, it was a curse for Southern legislators. The theatre of the Civil War between the northern and southern United States was the South. As a result, southern land was scorched and devastated, and the infrastructure was severely damaged. In short, southern states had much work to do, but lacked a workforce that was legally compelled to do it. Almost immediately, southern legislators seized upon the opportunity to use the exception to the 13th Amendment to their advantage. Using the exception, Georgia's legislators developed their criminal code to suit the South's economic condition.​

​

Georgia's legislative manipulation of the 13th Amendment served to reinforce and perpetuate notions of Black criminality in the many incarnations of its criminal code. Throughout the 19th Century, the State legally constructed Blackness to support claims of African American criminality, ineptitude and laziness. Moreover, state interpretations of the 13th Amendment wrote protections for African Americans out of the law in a manner that preserved White supremacy and allowed the abuses of the convict leasing and labor system. Perhaps most significantly, the historical and legal changes that occurred in the 19th century shaped Georgia's criminal sentencing laws well into the 21st Century. The end result has been disproportionate incarceration rates for Georgia's African American community. Through an historical exploration of Georgia's criminal codes and sentencing provisions, this article seeks to examine how autonomous political entities, such as the United States and Georgia legislatures, changed their strategies over time to replicate racist practices and maintain racially hegemonic legal structures. This article was written to address the absence of scholarship on the 13th Amendment exception in discussions of disproportionate minority incarceration. It was also written to address the inability or unwillingness of the United States Supreme Court to understand how autonomous political entities maintain power over oppressed groups over time. This article provides an example of the racism imbedded in anti-discrimination laws, by virtue of our Nation's legal history, an examines how current anti-discrimination doctrine is not broad enough to address the codification of racism."​

The Codification of Racism: Blacks, Criminal Sentencing, and the Legacy of Slavery in Georgia by Teri A. McMurtry-Chubb :: SSRN​

 

[Shelzin]

Negative. Individuals have rights. Identities do not. Hate crimes and what not are only there to show "WHY" someone did something. It is especially heinous when someone commits a crime out of prejudice and bigotry. It has nothing to do with the identity itself. They are there to show that it's highly likely the person in question is not logical, and need extra time or perhaps education in which to regain their ability to come back to normal society.

"The Codification of Racism: Blacks, Criminal Sentencing, and the Legacy of Slavery in Georgia​

Date Written: February 17, 2009​

​

Abstract

The passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 made the defeat of the southern Confederate army by the northern Union forces final and binding. It reads simply that: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof a party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction." The 13th Amendment memorialized the efforts of slaves, free persons of color, and other abolitionists to bring about freedom and equality. While it was a blessing for free people of color, it was a curse for Southern legislators. The theatre of the Civil War between the northern and southern United States was the South. As a result, southern land was scorched and devastated, and the infrastructure was severely damaged. In short, southern states had much work to do, but lacked a workforce that was legally compelled to do it. Almost immediately, southern legislators seized upon the opportunity to use the exception to the 13th Amendment to their advantage. Using the exception, Georgia's legislators developed their criminal code to suit the South's economic condition.​

​

Georgia's legislative manipulation of the 13th Amendment served to reinforce and perpetuate notions of Black criminality in the many incarnations of its criminal code. Throughout the 19th Century, the State legally constructed Blackness to support claims of African American criminality, ineptitude and laziness. Moreover, state interpretations of the 13th Amendment wrote protections for African Americans out of the law in a manner that preserved White supremacy and allowed the abuses of the convict leasing and labor system. Perhaps most significantly, the historical and legal changes that occurred in the 19th century shaped Georgia's criminal sentencing laws well into the 21st Century. The end result has been disproportionate incarceration rates for Georgia's African American community. Through an historical exploration of Georgia's criminal codes and sentencing provisions, this article seeks to examine how autonomous political entities, such as the United States and Georgia legislatures, changed their strategies over time to replicate racist practices and maintain racially hegemonic legal structures. This article was written to address the absence of scholarship on the 13th Amendment exception in discussions of disproportionate minority incarceration. It was also written to address the inability or unwillingness of the United States Supreme Court to understand how autonomous political entities maintain power over oppressed groups over time. This article provides an example of the racism imbedded in anti-discrimination laws, by virtue of our Nation's legal history, an examines how current anti-discrimination doctrine is not broad enough to address the codification of racism."​

The Codification of Racism: Blacks, Criminal Sentencing, and the Legacy of Slavery in Georgia by Teri A. McMurtry-Chubb :: SSRN​

That means nothing to what I said.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Negative. Individuals have rights. Identities do not. Hate crimes and what not are only there to show "WHY" someone did something. It is especially heinous when someone commits a crime out of prejudice and bigotry. It has nothing to do with the identity itself. They are there to show that it's highly likely the person in question is not logical, and need extra time or perhaps education in which to regain their ability to come back to normal society.

"The Codification of Racism: Blacks, Criminal Sentencing, and the Legacy of Slavery in Georgia​

Date Written: February 17, 2009​

​

Abstract

The passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 made the defeat of the southern Confederate army by the northern Union forces final and binding. It reads simply that: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof a party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction." The 13th Amendment memorialized the efforts of slaves, free persons of color, and other abolitionists to bring about freedom and equality. While it was a blessing for free people of color, it was a curse for Southern legislators. The theatre of the Civil War between the northern and southern United States was the South. As a result, southern land was scorched and devastated, and the infrastructure was severely damaged. In short, southern states had much work to do, but lacked a workforce that was legally compelled to do it. Almost immediately, southern legislators seized upon the opportunity to use the exception to the 13th Amendment to their advantage. Using the exception, Georgia's legislators developed their criminal code to suit the South's economic condition.​

​

Georgia's legislative manipulation of the 13th Amendment served to reinforce and perpetuate notions of Black criminality in the many incarnations of its criminal code. Throughout the 19th Century, the State legally constructed Blackness to support claims of African American criminality, ineptitude and laziness. Moreover, state interpretations of the 13th Amendment wrote protections for African Americans out of the law in a manner that preserved White supremacy and allowed the abuses of the convict leasing and labor system. Perhaps most significantly, the historical and legal changes that occurred in the 19th century shaped Georgia's criminal sentencing laws well into the 21st Century. The end result has been disproportionate incarceration rates for Georgia's African American community. Through an historical exploration of Georgia's criminal codes and sentencing provisions, this article seeks to examine how autonomous political entities, such as the United States and Georgia legislatures, changed their strategies over time to replicate racist practices and maintain racially hegemonic legal structures. This article was written to address the absence of scholarship on the 13th Amendment exception in discussions of disproportionate minority incarceration. It was also written to address the inability or unwillingness of the United States Supreme Court to understand how autonomous political entities maintain power over oppressed groups over time. This article provides an example of the racism imbedded in anti-discrimination laws, by virtue of our Nation's legal history, an examines how current anti-discrimination doctrine is not broad enough to address the codification of racism."​

The Codification of Racism: Blacks, Criminal Sentencing, and the Legacy of Slavery in Georgia by Teri A. McMurtry-Chubb :: SSRN​

That means nothing to what I said.

Okay, sorry, what was your point? I thought it had something to do with government infringement of individual rights.

I went back and reread what you said, but these legislators who crafted a whole new system of enslavement in order to circumvent the 13th amendment seem like they need a hell of a lot more than a time-out but on the other hand, this way of thinking was the status quo so what does that really say about those individuals who setup this system of racial discrimination against people of African descent. Or are you all are using the term "identity" in a different context?

 

[Shelzin]

Okay, sorry, what was your point? I thought it had something to do with government infringement of individual rights.

Negative... My point was that there are no rights except for individual rights. In the context of what we are speaking of.