- Mar 11, 2015
- 94,810
- 79,063
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #101
400 Years OF White Government Handouts (Cont.)
The Social Security Act of 1935 created the Social Security program, state unemployment insurance, and assistance to single women with children. Today most Americans love the program. However, when the act was signed, the law was made to exclude occupations that were mainly occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed the law, 65 percent of blacks in America were ineligible. So for years a majority of blacks were excluded from social security savings and could not get unemployment.
Time out! Hold up! Whoa! Let’s take a short break from the action to talk about the assistance to single women with children part of the Social Security Act. Title 4 or IV of the social security act of 1935 called for grants in aid to be provided to each stated as Aid To Dependent Children. “ Eventually the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children. This was welfare folks. Assistance for white single moms with children without daddy at home. In 1935. Blacks were excluded.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created the minimum wage and time and a half overtime pay for working over forty hours a week. Child labor was eliminated by this act. All these were good things but… This is the trouble with so many things in the history of America. There is always a but. Being imperfect, we all have buts and not just the ones we sit on. Yet in some cases, the word but comes before critical facts that change how we see things. In every law that was passed as part of The New Deal, Roosevelt had to make a compromise with southern representatives to get the votes he needed. In the case of the FLSA, he decided that industries would be excluded from the regulations where the majority of workers were black. Because of this, blacks were paid less than the minimum wage.
Earlier I mentioned that our society has allowed low lives into our national discourse on race. These liars and disingenuous opinion makers have sold many in modern white America a race-baited tale of opportunity lost and failure of black Americans that when examined against the facts, fails every fact check known to humanity. In the history of this country, I as a layman ordinary average joe can point to 3 specific instances where whatever government was in power, whether a colonial or constitutional republic, provided direct economic stimulus or assistance primarily to whites. Headrights, The Homestead Acts, and the New Deal to include the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act.
On June 22, 1944, President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, better known as the G.I. Bill. This law provided benefits for veterans returning from the Second World War. Funds were paid for college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance. As in every other program during this time southern congressmen fought passage of these laws unless there were provisions that limited access to blacks. The G.I Bill was no different.
Democratic congressmen in the south fought against provisions of the GI Bill out of fear that returning black veterans might be able to pressure southern whites using public support for veterans to end the white dependence on cheap black labor and the white racial preferences better known as, “the southern “way of life.” Southern Democrats using the same tactics they used to make certain other policies in the New Deal helped as few black people as possible, wanted benefits to be administered by the states. Mississippi Congressman John Rankin was the ringleader in that regard. He and other Southern Democrats knew doing that would allow southern states to do what each state had been doing since the Civil Rights Cases. That would be states implementing policies full of loopholes and restrictions that would be enforced on blacks but not whites thereby ensuring the GI Bill would primarily benefit whites. Northern Republicans gave southern Democrats what they wanted.
The reality of the G.I. Bill is that black veterans were sabotaged at nearly every opportunity. Due to the racism in our society that overflowed into the military, blacks were disproportionately dishonorably discharged. Dishonorable discharge disqualified veterans from benefits, so that stopped some black veterans. Acts by white terrorists were committed against black veterans. Some black veterans survived the war, came home, tried to use the benefits they so rightfully earned, and ended up getting lynched. Due to segregation, black veterans could often not access the same classes or training as their white counterparts. When the VA wasn’t trying to send black veterans to vocational schools, it was sending the large majority of them to black colleges that had been underfunded since the 1890 Morrill Act and the Plessy decision.
Northern universities were slow to admit blacks. “In 1947, some 70,000 African American veterans were unable to obtain admission to crowded, under-resourced black colleges. The University of Pennsylvania—one of the least-discriminatory schools at the time—enrolled only 40 African American students in its 1946 student body of 9,000.” Southern universities? Forget about it. “After World War II, blacks wanting to attend college in the South were restricted to about 100 public and private schools, few of which offered education beyond the baccalaureate and more than a quarter of which were junior colleges, with the highest degree below the B.A.”
I am going to present a policy here that many will not believe has benefitted whites. However, the statistics regarding white wealth between the time the policy was implemented until now shows that this program has benefitted white families more than anyone else by increasing family income due to the creation of more double wage earning families. That policy is Affirmative Action. Yes, that’s right, Affirmative Action has helped whites more than anyone else.
One might say; “How do you figure, Affirmative Action was made for blacks! Wrong! Affirmative Action was created to combat discrimination and blacks have not been the only ones discriminated against. So here we introduce another protected group, women. That includes white women.
On June 17, 2013 Sally Kohn wrote an article in Time titled, “Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone.” Kohn provides this historical backdrop for the implementation including the reasons why President Johnson added women: “Originally, women weren’t even included in legislation attempting to level the playing field in education and employment. The first affirmative-action measure in America was an executive order signed by President Kennedy in 1961 requiring that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” In 1967, President Johnson amended this, and a subsequent measure included sex, recognizing that women also faced many discriminatory barriers and hurdles to equal opportunity.” Kohn continues by stating that while Affirmative Action has helped people of color, it has disproportionately benefitted white women.
The National Womens Law Center did a study on Affirmatives Action and found that: “Women of color have lagged particularly far behind in both employment and education. For example, in 1998, the median weekly salary for Black women was $400 compared to $468 for white women and $615 for white men. Hispanic women earned a median weekly income of only $337. Even in sectors where women have made inroads into management, minority women continue to be underrepresented. In the banking industry, only 2.6% of executive, managerial and administrative jobs were held by Black women, and 5% by Hispanic women, compared to 37.6% by white women. In the hospital industry, Black and Hispanic women each held 4.6% of these jobs, while white women held 50.2%. At the top, women of color represented only 11.2% of all corporate officers in Fortune 500 companies. Women of color also earn fewer college degrees than white women. In 1997, white women made up 39% of college undergraduates and 42% of graduate students; minority women were only 16% of undergraduates and 10% of graduate students.”
Tim Wise had a paper published in the National Women’s Studies Association Journal in the fall of 1998 titled, “Is Sisterhood Conditional?: White Women and the Rollback of Affirmative Action”. His paper was about the reluctance of some white women to advocate for Affirmative Action despites the gains white women had achieved from the policy over the 30 years at that time, due to the policy.
“Thanks in large measure to affirmative action and civil rights protections that opened up previously restricted opportunities to women of all colors, from 1972-1993:
— The percentage of women architects increased from 3% to nearly 19% of the total;
— The percentage of women doctors more than doubled from 10% to 22% of all doctors;
— The percentage of women lawyers grew from 4% to 23% of the national total;
— The percentage of female engineers went from less than 1% to nearly 9%;
— The percentage of female chemists grew from 10% to 30% of all chemists; and,
— The percentage of female college faculty went from 28% to 42% of all faculty.
The gender benefits of affirmative action have extended beyond economically privileged women, expanding opportunity for working-class women as well: The 1985 Perkins Act, which requires states to set aside 10.5% of federal vocational-education funds for girls and women — such as displaced homemakers and single-mothers — has helped these women find new jobs to support themselves and their families. In Florida, thanks to this program, more than 70% of women receiving voc-ed funds found new jobs, at pay levels averaging twice their prior salaries (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education 1995).”
These increases in white women graduating college then entering into higher paying fields formerly dominated by men increased the earnings of white women. Since white men were already disproportionately represented in high paying positions, as white women married those men, their earnings combined with his further increased white wealth. White women have been the number one beneficiary of Affirmative Action. At the same time, white women have been the fiercest in opposition to the policy. This is an example of the denial a portion of the white population has displayed pertaining to matters of race and overall American equal rights.
The postings in this forum show just how oblivious some whites in America are to the reality of how things have been done. Our system has a problem that begins with an attitude not just of racism, but that of white entitlement. It is this entitlement mentality that has a portion of the white community who have almost everything they have today due to legislation at every level of government, lecturing blacks as well as others of color about a phantom ethic of rugged individualism. The choice of racial division by whites is a decision whites from a particular subgroup do not want to take responsibility for. The consequences of that decision are what we live with today. Instead of facing this truth, there are whites who will use any means they can to silence those who speak to the reality of the American lie.
So this began with an idiot asking these questions:
What is almost NEVER asked is: what should blacks be doing for themselves? And, what changes can blacks make in their own culture to help young blacks have a better chance to succeed?
My answer is also a question; "Just what exactly have whites done for themselves?"
The Social Security Act of 1935 created the Social Security program, state unemployment insurance, and assistance to single women with children. Today most Americans love the program. However, when the act was signed, the law was made to exclude occupations that were mainly occupied by blacks. When President Roosevelt signed the law, 65 percent of blacks in America were ineligible. So for years a majority of blacks were excluded from social security savings and could not get unemployment.
Time out! Hold up! Whoa! Let’s take a short break from the action to talk about the assistance to single women with children part of the Social Security Act. Title 4 or IV of the social security act of 1935 called for grants in aid to be provided to each stated as Aid To Dependent Children. “ Eventually the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children. This was welfare folks. Assistance for white single moms with children without daddy at home. In 1935. Blacks were excluded.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created the minimum wage and time and a half overtime pay for working over forty hours a week. Child labor was eliminated by this act. All these were good things but… This is the trouble with so many things in the history of America. There is always a but. Being imperfect, we all have buts and not just the ones we sit on. Yet in some cases, the word but comes before critical facts that change how we see things. In every law that was passed as part of The New Deal, Roosevelt had to make a compromise with southern representatives to get the votes he needed. In the case of the FLSA, he decided that industries would be excluded from the regulations where the majority of workers were black. Because of this, blacks were paid less than the minimum wage.
“I'm the beneficiary of the biggest affirmative action program in American history: A free education, a loan for a house. But black veterans didn't get it. We got made middle class by our government program.”
The Rev. Jim Wallis
The Rev. Jim Wallis
Earlier I mentioned that our society has allowed low lives into our national discourse on race. These liars and disingenuous opinion makers have sold many in modern white America a race-baited tale of opportunity lost and failure of black Americans that when examined against the facts, fails every fact check known to humanity. In the history of this country, I as a layman ordinary average joe can point to 3 specific instances where whatever government was in power, whether a colonial or constitutional republic, provided direct economic stimulus or assistance primarily to whites. Headrights, The Homestead Acts, and the New Deal to include the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act.
On June 22, 1944, President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, better known as the G.I. Bill. This law provided benefits for veterans returning from the Second World War. Funds were paid for college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance. As in every other program during this time southern congressmen fought passage of these laws unless there were provisions that limited access to blacks. The G.I Bill was no different.
Democratic congressmen in the south fought against provisions of the GI Bill out of fear that returning black veterans might be able to pressure southern whites using public support for veterans to end the white dependence on cheap black labor and the white racial preferences better known as, “the southern “way of life.” Southern Democrats using the same tactics they used to make certain other policies in the New Deal helped as few black people as possible, wanted benefits to be administered by the states. Mississippi Congressman John Rankin was the ringleader in that regard. He and other Southern Democrats knew doing that would allow southern states to do what each state had been doing since the Civil Rights Cases. That would be states implementing policies full of loopholes and restrictions that would be enforced on blacks but not whites thereby ensuring the GI Bill would primarily benefit whites. Northern Republicans gave southern Democrats what they wanted.
The reality of the G.I. Bill is that black veterans were sabotaged at nearly every opportunity. Due to the racism in our society that overflowed into the military, blacks were disproportionately dishonorably discharged. Dishonorable discharge disqualified veterans from benefits, so that stopped some black veterans. Acts by white terrorists were committed against black veterans. Some black veterans survived the war, came home, tried to use the benefits they so rightfully earned, and ended up getting lynched. Due to segregation, black veterans could often not access the same classes or training as their white counterparts. When the VA wasn’t trying to send black veterans to vocational schools, it was sending the large majority of them to black colleges that had been underfunded since the 1890 Morrill Act and the Plessy decision.
Northern universities were slow to admit blacks. “In 1947, some 70,000 African American veterans were unable to obtain admission to crowded, under-resourced black colleges. The University of Pennsylvania—one of the least-discriminatory schools at the time—enrolled only 40 African American students in its 1946 student body of 9,000.” Southern universities? Forget about it. “After World War II, blacks wanting to attend college in the South were restricted to about 100 public and private schools, few of which offered education beyond the baccalaureate and more than a quarter of which were junior colleges, with the highest degree below the B.A.”
I am going to present a policy here that many will not believe has benefitted whites. However, the statistics regarding white wealth between the time the policy was implemented until now shows that this program has benefitted white families more than anyone else by increasing family income due to the creation of more double wage earning families. That policy is Affirmative Action. Yes, that’s right, Affirmative Action has helped whites more than anyone else.
“Hoping to create in white men and women a shared sense of victimization at the hands of people of color, conservatives have made sure to ignore whatever gains have come to women through affirmative action and have sought to “racialize” the debate and its attendant imagery.”
Tim Wise
Tim Wise
One might say; “How do you figure, Affirmative Action was made for blacks! Wrong! Affirmative Action was created to combat discrimination and blacks have not been the only ones discriminated against. So here we introduce another protected group, women. That includes white women.
On June 17, 2013 Sally Kohn wrote an article in Time titled, “Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone.” Kohn provides this historical backdrop for the implementation including the reasons why President Johnson added women: “Originally, women weren’t even included in legislation attempting to level the playing field in education and employment. The first affirmative-action measure in America was an executive order signed by President Kennedy in 1961 requiring that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” In 1967, President Johnson amended this, and a subsequent measure included sex, recognizing that women also faced many discriminatory barriers and hurdles to equal opportunity.” Kohn continues by stating that while Affirmative Action has helped people of color, it has disproportionately benefitted white women.
“While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.”
Sally Kohn
Sally Kohn
The National Womens Law Center did a study on Affirmatives Action and found that: “Women of color have lagged particularly far behind in both employment and education. For example, in 1998, the median weekly salary for Black women was $400 compared to $468 for white women and $615 for white men. Hispanic women earned a median weekly income of only $337. Even in sectors where women have made inroads into management, minority women continue to be underrepresented. In the banking industry, only 2.6% of executive, managerial and administrative jobs were held by Black women, and 5% by Hispanic women, compared to 37.6% by white women. In the hospital industry, Black and Hispanic women each held 4.6% of these jobs, while white women held 50.2%. At the top, women of color represented only 11.2% of all corporate officers in Fortune 500 companies. Women of color also earn fewer college degrees than white women. In 1997, white women made up 39% of college undergraduates and 42% of graduate students; minority women were only 16% of undergraduates and 10% of graduate students.”
Tim Wise had a paper published in the National Women’s Studies Association Journal in the fall of 1998 titled, “Is Sisterhood Conditional?: White Women and the Rollback of Affirmative Action”. His paper was about the reluctance of some white women to advocate for Affirmative Action despites the gains white women had achieved from the policy over the 30 years at that time, due to the policy.
“Thanks in large measure to affirmative action and civil rights protections that opened up previously restricted opportunities to women of all colors, from 1972-1993:
— The percentage of women architects increased from 3% to nearly 19% of the total;
— The percentage of women doctors more than doubled from 10% to 22% of all doctors;
— The percentage of women lawyers grew from 4% to 23% of the national total;
— The percentage of female engineers went from less than 1% to nearly 9%;
— The percentage of female chemists grew from 10% to 30% of all chemists; and,
— The percentage of female college faculty went from 28% to 42% of all faculty.
The gender benefits of affirmative action have extended beyond economically privileged women, expanding opportunity for working-class women as well: The 1985 Perkins Act, which requires states to set aside 10.5% of federal vocational-education funds for girls and women — such as displaced homemakers and single-mothers — has helped these women find new jobs to support themselves and their families. In Florida, thanks to this program, more than 70% of women receiving voc-ed funds found new jobs, at pay levels averaging twice their prior salaries (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education 1995).”
These increases in white women graduating college then entering into higher paying fields formerly dominated by men increased the earnings of white women. Since white men were already disproportionately represented in high paying positions, as white women married those men, their earnings combined with his further increased white wealth. White women have been the number one beneficiary of Affirmative Action. At the same time, white women have been the fiercest in opposition to the policy. This is an example of the denial a portion of the white population has displayed pertaining to matters of race and overall American equal rights.
The postings in this forum show just how oblivious some whites in America are to the reality of how things have been done. Our system has a problem that begins with an attitude not just of racism, but that of white entitlement. It is this entitlement mentality that has a portion of the white community who have almost everything they have today due to legislation at every level of government, lecturing blacks as well as others of color about a phantom ethic of rugged individualism. The choice of racial division by whites is a decision whites from a particular subgroup do not want to take responsibility for. The consequences of that decision are what we live with today. Instead of facing this truth, there are whites who will use any means they can to silence those who speak to the reality of the American lie.
So this began with an idiot asking these questions:
What is almost NEVER asked is: what should blacks be doing for themselves? And, what changes can blacks make in their own culture to help young blacks have a better chance to succeed?
My answer is also a question; "Just what exactly have whites done for themselves?"
Last edited:
