Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not all native born black people came from slavery. A lot of native born black people are mixed races. Again, how do you determine how much and who gets what?

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

Unless angry whites decide to burn down prosperous black communities and projects again.
You just want hand outs instead of working and earning your way. If you are successful, why do you need charity?

And you actually think what we have endured means we are asking for charity? Then you wondrr why you get called dumb? You can't read apparetly?

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

So I will not get any money unless I am developing a program or business in the black community to increase economic development and growth in that community.

So read this again and understand that you have no logical argument.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion


A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.


Let us continue....

Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.


Let us continue.....

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.


Let us continue....

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Let us continue....

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


RACE - The Power of an Illusion | White Advantage

Of course you'll use the I did not get, I did not do argument. I doesn't exist at the macro level. WE do. And we are talking about a macro level situation. Do you know the difference between micro and macro level?
Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.
The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.
 
You know what? Let the government aka us tax paying citizens, pay reparations and be done with it. Any whining after that people can shut the fuck up.
 
Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.
Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.
 
Last edited:
image.php

image.php


This is one of the first subjects I talked about when I started posting on message boards. Are Blacks on average more racist than whites?
I've always believed that they are. Something that I discovered growing up was that almost every black in America thinks about race every day, whereas most whites don't. There's a reason for this, but this simple fact is being used by the left to divide America.

A Rassmussen survey asked the question 5 years ago, and my guess is it would be even worse today.



Wednesday, July 03, 2013[...]

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.

[...]​

While the the questions, assertions, accusations and arguments about "racism" have gone on ad infinitum for as long as I've been able to hear and to read I am yet to hear or to read the slightest attempt by anyone to explain what "racism" is. I quite honestly don't know what it is. Do you?

I've been called a "racist" numerous times and I really don't know if I am that or not.

I will appreciate hearing from someone who knows, or who thinks they know, what these frequently used words actually mean. I would really like to know if I really am a "racist."
 
image.php

image.php


This is one of the first subjects I talked about when I started posting on message boards. Are Blacks on average more racist than whites?
I've always believed that they are. Something that I discovered growing up was that almost every black in America thinks about race every day, whereas most whites don't. There's a reason for this, but this simple fact is being used by the left to divide America.

A Rassmussen survey asked the question 5 years ago, and my guess is it would be even worse today.



Wednesday, July 03, 2013[...]

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.

[...]​
While the the questions, assertions, accusations and arguments about "racism" have gone on ad infinitum for as long as I've been able to hear and to read I am yet to hear or to read the slightest attempt by anyone to explain what "racism" is. I quite honestly don't know what it is. Do you?

I've been called a "racist" numerous times and I really don't know if I am that or not.

I will appreciate hearing from someone who knows, or who thinks they know, what these frequently used words actually mean. I would really like to know if I really am a "racist."
You're in luck. I'm here to give you a definition of racist that cannot be denied.a racist is the product of racialism. If you believe in the concept of race you are by that belief a racist. I don't believe in race or racialism because centuries of interbreeding has diversified the human gene pool to the extent that genetically, indivuduals in ostensibly "homogenous" groups may have more genetic affinity with other individuals within so called "racial group"different
than their own.
 
Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.
Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.
The only thing I have heard some whites say is that there is a Back History Month, but not a White History Month, not they want one. The response from some blacks is that every month is white history month, which is false, there is no celebration of anyone white just because of their race.
 
image.php

image.php


This is one of the first subjects I talked about when I started posting on message boards. Are Blacks on average more racist than whites?
I've always believed that they are. Something that I discovered growing up was that almost every black in America thinks about race every day, whereas most whites don't. There's a reason for this, but this simple fact is being used by the left to divide America.

A Rassmussen survey asked the question 5 years ago, and my guess is it would be even worse today.



Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

There is a huge ideological difference on this topic. Among conservative Americans, 49% consider most blacks racist, and only 12% see most whites that way. Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans.

From a partisan perspective, 49% of Republicans see most black Americans as racist, along with 36% of unaffiliated adults and 29% of Democrats.

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.

Among white adults, 10% think most white Americans are racist; 38% believe most blacks are racist, and 17% say most Hispanics are racist.

Overall, just 30% of all Americans now rate race relations in the United States as good or excellent. Fourteen percent (14%) describe them as poor. Twenty-nine percent (29%) think race relations are getting better, while 32% believe they are getting worse. Thirty-five percent (35%) feel they are staying about the same.

These figures reflect more pessimism than was found in April when 42% gave race relations positive marks and 39% said race relations were improving. However, the April number reflected all-time highs while the current numbers are more consistent with the general attitudes of recent years.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 1-2, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

------------------

Blacks are slightly more optimistic about the current state of race relations in American than whites and Hispanics are. But 37% of blacks and 38% of Hispanics believe those relations are getting worse, compared to 29% of whites.​

image.php



Links
Back in 2002, I was at a public college, taking a course on "social problems".

A black lady in the class said she knew how real racism was because when she got into an elevator at a shopping mall for example, the white people would clutch their purses and stuff closer.

The implication was that everyone who clutched their stuff closer, when someone got on an elevator, they were doing so for racists reasons.

When you have race in your heart, you can see racism everywhere.

Ironically, the very building we were in was 4 stories, and had an elevator. On the way out of the school that same day, I used the elevator. There was a woman on the elevator, and when I stepped on..... she clutched her purse closer to her. Darn white people racists against whites.
 
Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.
Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.
The only thing I have heard some whites say is that there is a Back History Month, but not a White History Month, not they want one. The response from some blacks is that every month is white history month, which is false, there is no celebration of anyone white just because of their race.
Black history month is not a month for celebration. Black history month is a time of reflection on that part if history ommitted in our schools curriculums..
 
Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.
Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.
The only thing I have heard some whites say is that there is a Back History Month, but not a White History Month, not they want one. The response from some blacks is that every month is white history month, which is false, there is no celebration of anyone white just because of their race.
Black history month is not a month for celebration. Black history month is a time of reflection on that part if history ommitted in our schools curriculums..
Black History Month is an annual celebration of achievements by African Americans and a time for recognizing the central role of blacks in U.S. history. from Black History Month - Black History - HISTORY.com
 
All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

Unless angry whites decide to burn down prosperous black communities and projects again.
You just want hand outs instead of working and earning your way. If you are successful, why do you need charity?

And you actually think what we have endured means we are asking for charity? Then you wondrr why you get called dumb? You can't read apparetly?

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

So I will not get any money unless I am developing a program or business in the black community to increase economic development and growth in that community.

So read this again and understand that you have no logical argument.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion


A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.


Let us continue....

Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.


Let us continue.....

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.


Let us continue....

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Let us continue....

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


RACE - The Power of an Illusion | White Advantage

Of course you'll use the I did not get, I did not do argument. I doesn't exist at the macro level. WE do. And we are talking about a macro level situation. Do you know the difference between micro and macro level?
Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.
The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.
The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.
 
Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.
Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.
The only thing I have heard some whites say is that there is a Back History Month, but not a White History Month, not they want one. The response from some blacks is that every month is white history month, which is false, there is no celebration of anyone white just because of their race.
Black history month is not a month for celebration. Black history month is a time of reflection on that part if history ommitted in our schools curriculums..
Black History Month is an annual celebration of achievements by African Americans and a time for recognizing the central role of blacks in U.S. history. from Black History Month - Black History - HISTORY.com
Sorry...Black history is also a reflection on the evils heaped upon them by whites. It is a complex.amalgam of things that reflect the black experience in the African diaspora.
Celebration of certain individuals may be a subset of the event.

Anywayvmost whites aren't all that interested.
Many are vexed by the notion of BHM and dismiss it as fake history. To them REAL history is theirs.
 
You just want hand outs instead of working and earning your way. If you are successful, why do you need charity?

And you actually think what we have endured means we are asking for charity? Then you wondrr why you get called dumb? You can't read apparetly?

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

So I will not get any money unless I am developing a program or business in the black community to increase economic development and growth in that community.

So read this again and understand that you have no logical argument.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion


A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.


Let us continue....

Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.


Let us continue.....

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.


Let us continue....

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Let us continue....

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


RACE - The Power of an Illusion | White Advantage

Of course you'll use the I did not get, I did not do argument. I doesn't exist at the macro level. WE do. And we are talking about a macro level situation. Do you know the difference between micro and macro level?
Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.
The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.
The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.
Lol whites werent the only beneficiaries of AA
 
Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month.
Did you dream that? Or do you work these notions out for convenience of continuity as you invent these concepts?

I am White. I am 81 years old. Never once in all that time did I ever hear (or read) a White person make the vaguest reference to the idea of a "White history month." Why would they? What would the point be?

If I am mistaken and if you are able to cite an example of what you've asserted, please do so -- and I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.
The only thing I have heard some whites say is that there is a Back History Month, but not a White History Month, not they want one. The response from some blacks is that every month is white history month, which is false, there is no celebration of anyone white just because of their race.
Black history month is not a month for celebration. Black history month is a time of reflection on that part if history ommitted in our schools curriculums..
Black History Month is an annual celebration of achievements by African Americans and a time for recognizing the central role of blacks in U.S. history. from Black History Month - Black History - HISTORY.com
Sorry...Black history is also a reflection on the evils heaped upon them by whites. It is a complex.amalgam of things that reflect the black experience in the African diaspora.
Celebration of certain individuals may be a subset of the event.

Anywayvmost whites aren't all that interested.
Many are vexed by the notion of BHM and dismiss it as fake history. To them REAL history is theirs.
I dont have issues with Black History Month. I think its great for anyone to learn their history.
 
You just want hand outs instead of working and earning your way. If you are successful, why do you need charity?

And you actually think what we have endured means we are asking for charity? Then you wondrr why you get called dumb? You can't read apparetly?

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

So I will not get any money unless I am developing a program or business in the black community to increase economic development and growth in that community.

So read this again and understand that you have no logical argument.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion


A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.


Let us continue....

Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.


Let us continue.....

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.


Let us continue....

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Let us continue....

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


RACE - The Power of an Illusion | White Advantage

Of course you'll use the I did not get, I did not do argument. I doesn't exist at the macro level. WE do. And we are talking about a macro level situation. Do you know the difference between micro and macro level?
Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.
The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.
The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.
Yes, eventually, so was the abolition of slavery,
 
Perhaps blacks are slightly LESS racist than whites, perhaps way more. How are we going to measure that? I seen young black males beat little old white ladies to death, or slaughter human adults of mixed races. But I doubt that is just a statistical fluke. I don't think so. I have personally had to shelter some black kids after their daddy slaughtered their mother, and then later had to protect a Hispanic woman from her abusive boyfriend...I don't speak Spanish, either. Just common sense. It just seems to me some cultures are more abuse than others. I never have seen this level of abuse before until recently.
 
Last edited:
You're in luck. I'm here to give you a definition of racist that cannot be denied.a racist is the product of racialism. If you believe in the concept of race you are by that belief a racist. I don't believe in race or racialism because centuries of interbreeding has diversified the human gene pool to the extent that genetically, indivuduals in ostensibly "homogenous" groups may have more genetic affinity with other individuals within so called "racial group"different
than their own.
What...?
 
And you actually think what we have endured means we are asking for charity? Then you wondrr why you get called dumb? You can't read apparetly?

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

So I will not get any money unless I am developing a program or business in the black community to increase economic development and growth in that community.

So read this again and understand that you have no logical argument.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion


A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.


Let us continue....

Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.


Let us continue.....

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.


Let us continue....

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Let us continue....

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


RACE - The Power of an Illusion | White Advantage

Of course you'll use the I did not get, I did not do argument. I doesn't exist at the macro level. WE do. And we are talking about a macro level situation. Do you know the difference between micro and macro level?
Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.
The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.
The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.
Yes, eventually, so was the abolition of slavery,
Manumission was just a cosmetic superficial gesture by a relatively few whites. But it seems all whites, even the most virulent racists, want to take credit for it.
 
And you actually think what we have endured means we are asking for charity? Then you wondrr why you get called dumb? You can't read apparetly?

All native born blacks faced racial discrimination and American Aparthied. A mixed race black was considered black. .I think if you are going to argue, you should know what you are arguing abut instead of seeking ways to discredit an argument based in not knowing any of the facts. I am quite sure we are capable of determining eligibility for reparations and the majority opinion seems to be that the money be put in funds for specific types of programs instead of paying individuals. If you thought about this with some common sense instead of race baited thinking, you would see this is the perfect solution. If blacks are awarded reparations and we piss it away with no improvements, we have nothing more to complain about as whites would have done all they could do to make up for the wrongs done..

So I will not get any money unless I am developing a program or business in the black community to increase economic development and growth in that community.

So read this again and understand that you have no logical argument.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion


A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.


Let us continue....

Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.


Let us continue.....

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.


Let us continue....

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Let us continue....

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


RACE - The Power of an Illusion | White Advantage

Of course you'll use the I did not get, I did not do argument. I doesn't exist at the macro level. WE do. And we are talking about a macro level situation. Do you know the difference between micro and macro level?
Do you know the difference between past and present? Sure, the past affects the present, but thats life. Move on and quit whining. There is no macro or micro level when it comes to who should get compensated. You are jyst an angry man who hates white people

LOL! We are owed, Every group that's been wronged n his nation has gotten reparations except us.. If no one had ever got them we have no right to ask. But that's not what happened . So again you need to be quiet if you don't know what you are talking abut.
The Irish were not compensated, women were not compensated.
The iriish were eventually indoctrinated into the "white" club. White women gained favor as .AA beneficiaries when their white husbands saw value in having two good paychecks coming in.
Lol whites werent the only beneficiaries of AA

What? OMG! You're kidding...right? Heh heh heh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top