An Informal Debate on Race Relations in the United States Including Its History

[freyasman]

I guess it depends on your perspective.

From my perspective, I'd rather not be.

 

[IM2]

The comment was made earlier about how blacks just can't get our act together and talked about culture and values.

Awww...the poor snowflakes. Who the hell isn't "wounded"? Hundreds of thousands of Irish people came here under indentured servitude, which wasn't much better than slavery. ​

That is one of the greatest falsehoods that has manifested itself in the discourse about racism in America. For years I even believed that. I remember reading a book titled “Trinity” written by Leon Uris about a fictional hero of the Irish resistance named Conor Larkin. The story detailed the treatment of the Irish from the 1700’s until the 1916 uprising. After reading that book, I was convinced that the Irish had it just as bad as blacks. Yes, the Irish were treated terribly in Europe and when they first came to America. But they were not slaves. Irish historians such as Liam Hogan have made this crystal clear.

“I conservatively estimate that tens of millions of people have been exposed to ‘Irish slaves’ disinformation in one form or another on social media.”

Liam Hogan​

From 2015 until 2019, Liam Hogan compiled some 52 different articles debunking the tale of Irish slavery. The intent here is not to denigrate nonracist Irish citizens of this country, but to destroy a popular white supremacist meme that has plagued social media and American culture for years. According to Hogan and other Irish historians in his compilation, the Irish were indentured servants and not slaves. The fallacy in using indentured servitude as an argument lies in the fact that indentured servitude was a contractual agreement made between 2 or more parties. One party agreed that for payment of passage to America, the individual(s) would work for a specified term to repay the cost of passage. To say it was not much better than slavery is simply a lie. Slavery was permanent. Slavery was also generational. If you we born into a slave family, you were a slave. When you had children, they were slaves. There was no 7 years and a headright.

“The tale of the Irish slaves is rooted in a false conflation of indentured servitude and chattel slavery. These are not the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. Indentured servitude was a colonial innovation that enabled many to emigrate to the New World while providing a cheap and white labour force for planters and merchants to exploit. Those who completed their term of service were awarded ‘freedom dues’ and were free. The vast majority of labourers who agreed to this system did so voluntarily, but there were many who were forcibly transplanted from the British Isles to the colonies and sold into indentured service against their will. While these forced deportees would have included political prisoners and serious felons, it is believed that the majority came from the poor and vulnerable. This forced labour was in essence an extension of the English Poor Laws, e.g. in 1697. John Locke recommended the whipping of those who ‘refused to work’ and the herding of beggars into workhouses. Indeed this criminalisation of the poor continues into the 21st century. In any case, all bar the serious felons were freed once the term of their contract expired.”

Liam Hogan​

Certainly, the Irish did endure difficulties. The general argument in order to dismiss or derail conversations about the treatment of blacks, is that everybody had it tough. That is true, but everybody else CHOSE to come to America. No matter what diversion is used, Africans sold Africans to whites. The shipping companies were not owned by Africans. Nor does it appear that the more than 10 million Africans shipped across the Atlantic made any contractual agreement to perform labor in return for passage. So yes, the Europeans that chose to come here with little or nothing did struggle. But the various European ethnic groups had one thing they used to lift themselves up. And they used it to step on others- the race card.

“Whiteness is a social construct, and one with concrete benefits. Being white in the U.S. has long meant better jobs and opportunities, and an escape from persecution based on appearance and culture. Although these structural advantages remain, the meaning of whiteness is still hotly debated.”

Sarah Kendzior, How do you become “white” in America?​

Those who claim today to have suffered like blacks did not. I will cite 2 groups, the Irish and the Polish. Upon coming to this country both groups were considered lesser and inferior. In the north, Irish and blacks competed for the same jobs, or should I say, were relegated to low wage, menial labor. Irish and blacks in the north lived in the same communities. Both groups mixed socially, intermarried and had biracial children. The green was the black when and where no blacks existed.

“In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish. A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: "My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman." Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: "Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, 'You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.' The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded."

Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out. They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation. In fact, one of the primary themes of How the Irish Became White is the way in which left labor historians, such as the highly acclaimed Herbert Gutman, have not paid sufficient attention to the problem of race in the development of the labor movement.

And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed "race," Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another "race," Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic. Becoming white meant losing their greenness, i.e., their Irish cultural heritage and the legacy of oppression and discrimination back home.”

Art McDonald, Ph.D., “How the Irish Became White”
​

(cont.)

 

[IM2]

So much is getting interesting, but I have an early morning tomorrow and I have to go.

Porter, maybe you can explain that comment about the 14th amendment blowing up the Bill of Rights and making us all slaves another time.

IM, I want to know how they got around only 21 states ratifying the 14th.

Mariyam, it's been an interesting day.

Night, all.

I don't really know since all 50 states have ratified it.

 

[freyasman]

I retired from a position of Executive Director. I left power and did so gladly. Freyasman doesn't have a clue about me and he dislikes me because I won't shut up and let the racists here spend all day denigrating everything blacks do. When I see thread where whites are denigrating us for what we eat, I don't see this guy attacking any of those people.

To be fair, I never saw that thread.

 

[freyasman]

You were a mercenary?

US Army.
I don't see much difference, other than the pension. The other contract work I did, I didn't ever have to kill anyone. Came close a few times though.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So much is getting interesting, but I have an early morning tomorrow and I have to go.

Porter, maybe you can explain that comment about the 14th amendment blowing up the Bill of Rights and making us all slaves another time.

IM, I want to know how they got around only 21 states ratifying the 14th.

Mariyam, it's been an interesting day.

Night, all.

Yes, it has been, thanks to you all.

And thank you so much for refereeing our debate, have a good evening and we'll talk soon

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

From my perspective, I'd rather not be.

Well I certainly understand your perspective, I had the same one for more than a decade until I got to the point where the exhaustion and stress of being hyper vigilent wasn't worth it.

 

[IM2]

The comment was made earlier about how blacks just can't get our act together and talked about culture and values. (cont.)

After slavery, blacks were being killed by whites with no crimes charged while the Supreme Court basically repealed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments with a series of rulings. Due the consistent state and federally protected barbaric acts by whites, southern blacks felt they had to go north. When blacks started moving north, southern business and government leaders enacted laws in order to stop free people from going where they could earn a decent living. But even under the threat of jail or death, millions of blacks headed north where they believe they'd be treated right. If they had known what was waiting up north, the migration would have ended in Canada.

As blacks went north they found that the only difference between a southern white and a northern one was geography. When blacks went north, so did lynchings. They are recorded as race riots, but that's disingenuous considering what happened. The reality is there were a series of massacres of blacks by whites in these years due to the northern migration of blacks trying to escape the conditions they had to endure in the south. Historians call what happened riots in the general “American” tradition of trying to reduce the seriousness of the atrocities. You can make your own determination on what to call the following events.

The May and July East St. Louis massacres in 1917 caused the estimated deaths of 250 African Americans. Another 6,000 blacks were left homeless. These were labor and race related as whites felt threatened by the blacks migrating from the south. The damage caused by the rioting and vandalism cost the equivalent of 7.9 million in todays dollars. These massacres are said to be some of the worst “race riots” in the history of America.

The Chicago massacre of 1919 was another conflict started by white Americans against blacks. It began on Chicago’s South Side and lasted approximately 1 week beginning on July 27, and ending on August 3, 1919. Thirty-eight people died, both black and white. Over 500 people were injured, the majority of which were black. An estimated 1,000 to 2,000 people lost their homes with the majority again being black. This was one of over 20 riots in what was called the "Red Summer" of 1919 This massacre had it all, one full week of arson, looting and murder in what is considered one of the worst “race riots” in Illinois history.

Once again, the violence was caused by the tension created relative to competition for work between white ethnic groups and blacks fleeing from the south to what they believed would be safety and decent paying jobs. Due to the Great Migration, thousands of African Americans from the South had moved next to neighborhoods of European immigrants on the South Side and near the jobs in those communities. Since the Irish had established themselves in these communities they defended what they believed was their territory and did so by any means necessary.

The week of mayhem started because of the death of Eugene Williams, an African-American who accidently started swimming in a white swimming area at a segregated beach. So because whites could not tell the kid to swim somewhere else and decided to kill him, whites used this as an excuse to invade black neighborhoods to terrorize the blacks living in them. Blacks were attacked going to and from work. Some blacks organized to protect each other. There were whites that tried helping blacks in their efforts. What about the police? Well, like Sgt Schultz on “Hogans Heroes,” they saw nothing, they heard nothing, and they did nothing.

The Omaha Race Riot occurred on September 28–29, 1919. One cause of this riot were whites feeling economic anxiety because of the increasing number of blacks escaping the south who were trying to find work. Weeks before this riot, federal investigators were warning that a conflict was imminent between black and white workers in Omaha. The animosity appears to have begun in 1917 when management at the stockyards hired blacks as strikebreakers. Nobody likes a strikebreaker, so add that to the reasons whites could give themselves for imposing violence on blacks. Once again, we see that it is the Irish who were the ringleaders in the oppression of blacks. As in Chicago, the Irish had established their power as they were the first immigrants in Omaha and used their political power to maintain an advantage.

Omaha at that time had been controlled by a political boss named Thomas Dennison. To be blunt, Dennison was a crook. He controlled Omaha for 18 years before the city elected a non-Dennison flunky for mayor named Edward Parsons Smith. Dennison and his buddies did not like that. Dennison and his friends then race baited the people of Omaha and incited the Omaha Riots.

Another cause of this riot was the accusation of a black man for the rape of a white woman. These two things, economic anxiety and claims of black male sexual aggression, have been the general standard for white violence against blacks throughout American history. The lynching of Will Brown was started by reports in local media about the alleged rape of a 19-year-old woman named Agnes Loebeck on September 25, 1919. The following day the police arrested Brown as a suspect. Loebeck identified Brown as her rapist but subsequent reports by the Omaha Police and the United States Army show she had not made a positive identification. There was an attempt to lynch Brown on the day of his arrest, but it failed.

The Omaha Bee publicized the incident as one of a series of alleged attacks on white women by black men. The newspaper published a series of articles alleging incidents of black upheavals. The Bee was controlled by a Dennison ally, Thomas Rosewater, who also was opposed to the administration of Mayor Edward Smith. “After citizens finally elected a non-Dennison man, one Edward Parsons Smith, as mayor in 1918, Dennison henchmen were accused of putting on blackface, assaulting women, and then stirring up crowds, leading to the lynching of black man Will Brown and the near-lynching of Mayor Smith.” Rosewaters paper highlighted the Dennison made blackface incidents of criminality to embarrass the new administration. The Omaha Police even caught one of Dennisons men wearing the blackface that night, but in another case of Schultzism, Dennison nor any of his associates were charged or convicted of a crime. Will Brown was lynched, shot up after he was dead, dragged through the streets of Omaha and set on fire. He had committed no crime.

Again, economic anxiety and claims of black male sexual aggression, have been the general standard for white violence against blacks throughout American history. On the evening of Saturday July 19, 1919, In a downtown Washington D.C. bar, a group of white veterans started a rumor about a black man suspected by the D.C, Police Department of sexually assaulting a white woman. The victim happened to be the wife of a Navy man. This rumor made it’s ways through the various downtown Washington D.C. establishments. So later that night, a mob of white veterans headed to a predominantly black neighborhood carrying clubs, lead pipes, and other weapons. Those veterans brutally beat all the blacks they found. They took blacks out of their cars or off the sidewalks and beat them for no reason. Where were the police? I think they had donut shops back then, but I am not sure. The violence continued into Sunday because the Metropolitan Police Department failed to stop it. Blacks were getting beaten on the streets of Washington and even in front of the White House. The race riot in Washington, D.C. lasted four days and was more accurately described as a “race war.” A race war in our nations capital.

These are but 4 of the "riots" that took place during the “Red Summer” of 1919. The massacres did not end there. One of the worst acts of domestic terrorism in American history happened in two days of American history beginning on May 31st, 1921 in Tulsa Oklahoma. The Tulsa Massacre. One may as well say this was an act of war waged on the black citizens of Tulsa Oklahoma by white citizens. I say this because not only were blacks attacked on the ground they were attacked by air. Whites in private planes flew over the black community shooting down on blacks and firebombing black homes and businesses.

“I could see planes circling in mid-air. They grew in number and hummed, darted and dipped low. I could hear something like hail falling upon the top of my office building. Down East Archer, I saw the old Mid-Way hotel on fire, burning from its top, and then another and another and another building began to burn from their top,”

B.C. Franklin​

The excuse by city law enforcement officials was that the planes were reconnaissance used to protect against a Negro uprising. Still today, an accurate accounting of the number of dead varies. More than 6,000 people were either admitted to hospitals or sent to other large facilities for care. More than 10,000 blacks were left homeless. The bombings and ground attacks destroyed 35 city blocks of Tulsa, resulting in damages that equaled over 32 million dollars in today’s money.

In 1951 a black man named Harvey Clark and his family tried to move into the Cicero neighborhood of Chicago. A white mob vandalized his home and burned his furniture in the front yard. Aside from trying to force Clark out of his own home, the police did nothing. In first six months of 1955 there were 213 acts of violence against blacks by whites is Philadelphia. They were done to intimidate and terrorize blacks so they would not move into white communities. In 1964 when blacks tried renting an apartment in a white Chicago neighborhood, their apartment was vandalized then police entered the apartment, removed the furniture and told the renters they had been evicted. At the same time in Detroit, there were over 200 acts of violence against blacks by whites to terrorize black families so they would not move to the suburbs. In Los Angeles during the World War II, a black family was murdered when their home was bombed. For the first 5 years after WW2 in Chicago alone, there were 317 acts of terror by whites against blacks who tried living in or near majority white neighborhoods. From 1950-1965 there were over 100 bombings of black owned residences in Los Angeles. In 1987, another black family tried moving into Cicero. Whites responded with gunfire and firebombs.

These acts of terrorism have gone long ignored in understanding the brutality and long-lasting effects of these acts upon blacks in America to this very moment. For years prosperous blacks were terrorized while black communities were destroyed by mobs of angry whites who felt they were losing out because blacks had acquired the same things whites had. Ignored was the fact that blacks worked hard to get what they had, but that didn’t matter because blacks were to always be lesser than whites and that was to be accomplished by any means necessary.

Blacks peacefully moved north to compete for same opportunities white immigrants had and this is just a small bit of what happened. White immigrants are the ones who committed the violence against blacks. White immigrants destroyed thriving black communities. The same white immigrants whose descendants will tell you today how they are not responsible because their ancestors did not own slaves. So why can’t blacks raise themselves up by their bootstraps just like everyone else? After all, everybody had it hard.

 

[MarcATL]

If I've lost any debate then the truth has no place here. All I'm doing is to quote history. You've not disputed the facts. Sticking a label on the material and declaring a winner in a REAL debate would have eliminated you. I've already addressed the fact that there were people here; however, you ignored TWO important facts:

1) They were not civilized which didn't give them much of a chance in a fight AND

2) The colonists took the land based upon the internationally accepted Right of Conquest... which I bolded and whether it was right or wrong, it was perfectly legal. Adding insult to injury I went on to make a correlation between current U.S. policies toward other nations and the fact that we do it in foreign lands without any discussion or debate and, instead of forming a factual response to that you told a bare faced, rotten, stinking lie. You think that everybody that doesn't bow down and kiss your royal ass is "Identity." You proclaim anyone that disagrees with you to be racist, etc. and most people put your dumb ass on ignore. One thing that is the irrefutable truth here is that you are a low down, no good, lying piece of shit. Now, are we going to have a debate or do you want a pissing match OR does the OP want me to disappear? I can be uninvited as quickly as I got invited.

Laws to who? And legal to who?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Porter Rockwell said:
the REAL INTENT of the 14th Amendment was to nullify the Bill of Rights and abolish unalienable Rights, reducing all Americans to the status of a government slave,

Porter Rockwell , I would like an explanation for your comment.

The lying politicians told the black people the 14th Amendment was all about granting citizenship to black people and guaranteeing equal "rights." What a pantload! Black people are still wailing about laws that they say keep them from being equal. If the 14th Amendment did not produce the results promised, then what did it REALLY do?

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment we had the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights actually codified the unalienable Rights the colonists for in the War of Independence. Courts consistently ruled that unalienable Rights were absolute, God given, irrevocable, natural, inherent Rights that are above the law. As America progressed, the American people began to accept the fact that the government was applying unalienable Rights to everybody. Here are a couple of court rulings that explain these Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

An unalienable Right is a God given Right. It cannot be sold, transferred, forfeited, withheld, used as a tool of trade, etc. because the government did not grant it. There is a word that you will not defined in any United States Supreme Court ruling (probably not in any federal ruling that I've been able to find.) It is a synonym for unalienable and it never appears in any interpretation of the Constitution until AFTER the ratification of the 14th Amendment. That word is inalienable. Watch real carefully and see if you notice this before I explain it. Here is a court interpretation of the word inalienable:

“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

So, here is the bottom line: The United States Supreme Court had already ruled that they do NOT grant, secure or create unalienable Rights. All of a sudden they have this word inalienable and presto, the government is in the rights granting business. Think I'm kidding? The official word in the Declaration of Independence is unalienable. After the courts got a different interpretation for the word inalienable, they dropped the use of the word unalienable. Unalienable has been dropped from even Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative legal dictionary used by judges and lawyers. It is THE standard.) The grantor of inalienable rights is the government ; the grantor of your unalienable Rights is your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) So, the politicians can put anything on paper they like and make you feel good - then nothing happens... and one day you feel like a rodent on a treadmill. You find out you are still a slave. You just allowed yourself to be sold to a different owner. Whites are now slaves too. We don't have any real Rights, we only have privileges and immunities that are being doled out by the master. Do you know why blacks and whites beat the living Hell out of each other? It is to amuse the power brokers AND to allow you to be conned into giving up more and more of your Liberties to an illegal government (illegal because it used illegal methods to change our form of government and enslave whites and blacks.) That is an irrefutable fact... I can back it up with over 100 court rulings.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Laws to who? And legal to who?

Your question is not related to anything mentioned in that post.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't understand why the term "identity" is offensive however if I can I will ask IM2 to refrain for addressing you as such. I don't want you to give up because of one person. None of us are in complete agreement on anything but speaking for myself, I'm willing to listen to the complaints to see if I can understand things a bit better and maybe some of you can understand our perspective a bit better.

I have not made a single judgment call on what black people perceive. I'm not judging, not trying to flame you for what they say. I'm just presenting the view from the white people's historical perspective. Most whites are ignorant of their history so what I'm saying is probably news to most of them. They have no idea of the history that shaped their world view. Their history is under constant assault.

 

[MarcATL]

Your question is not related to anything mentioned in that post.

You said it was 1. The LAW, and 2. It was legal.

My question is...to and for WHO?

Surely not the Native Indians of the time.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I've stood in front of city councils, I've been on TV and radio. I have written op eds and spoke on college campuses. If you dared to spit on me, your life will change immediately.

I'd give my front seat in Hell for that opportunity. I've been in courts with my life on the line for what I believe in. I've been shot at - more than once. You have NOTHING on me.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I'm confused. I thought the original settler came over on the Mayflower to escape religious perspecution in England, that religion was mandated by the crown as the Church of England who I thought were Christians and I thought Israelis or Israelites are Jewish? No?

1) Jews are NOT Israelites, but rather poseurs

2) The colonists were still subjects of the Crown, but they were thousands of miles away, not being persecuted by their political masters

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

All races have a right to equal rights under the law in America. If there remain inequities I want them changed. I believe that no race has a right to special privileges under the law because of color. However other forms of discrimination are legal normal and natural and practiced in some form or other by everyone. Legislation doesn't change hearts and minds. Do you want to eat "healthy" instead of "junk foods"? Do you want to wear the red dress instead of the green one? Do you recommend that your daughter date college students instead of guys with prison tats? Discrimination.
u'

Since this discussion is in the Bull Ring only people who were invited are allowed to comment. You can however use the emoticons to rate the comments.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You said it was 1. The LAW, and 2. It was legal.

My question is...to and for WHO?

Surely not the Native Indians of the time.

I've read it three times. No such wording was used. Are you sure you aren't meaning internationally accepted Right?

 

[MarcATL]

In then end... and I am most likely done here...
I personally can say with 110% genuine belief - there is no difference between whites and blacks in everything that counts the day they are born. Blacks are absolutely, in no way shape or form inferior to whites. PERIOD.
And anyone who thinks so is ignorant. PERIOD.
Having said that, blacks were severely hampered by the liberal social programs of the 50s - 80s. And those inner city blacks are to this day still paying the price for it 100%. What the hell did people expect when an entire section of the populations were slammed together in jam packed public housing purposefully situated away from jobs, away from schools = away from everyone else. This was done ON PURPOSE.
And Democrats today want to pretend this whole process didn't happen.
They institutionalized and victimized an entire race of people...who had children, who also had children - all brought up in these public housing where there are no jobs, shitty schools and NO ONE judges them for whatever bad choices they make. NO ONE calls them out for HUGE cultural problems - that they DID NOT HAVE prior to the 1950s.
Democrats took a proud, hard working group of people - and ruined them.
And they are doing the same thing with Latinos.

So there was NOTHING that happened before 1950 that whites did to blacks, in this country, that severely hampered this?

American history begins in 1950 huh?

 

[MarcATL]

But aren’t you lumping all whites together...doing what they do to you?

Why shouldn’t we both change our group assumptions?

What assumptions?

When blacks talk about the racial injustice historically in this country, then contemporary whites, for the most part, start complaining about "lumping them in groups" and "group assumptions."

Seriously now, does that make sense to you?

 

[yidnar]

Whites have been given free land, free education, guaranteed home loans, and every opportunity the American system can give. I was born here, I don't have to leave because I ask for complete equal rights.

i dont know any of these whites you speak of ....as the average white American the whites i know work their asses off just to pay the bills and put food on the table ! listening to you it sounds like you believe all whites are evil rich and racist and have been given everything ...thats a lie .