Never tell me America is racist: An open letter to protesters

[TemplarKormac]

Look white boy, you don't get credit for calling the fire department after you start a fire.

I didn't start the fire, but you're the one stoking the embers.

Not even you are interested in putting the fire out.

"White boy"?

If this were truly about ending racism, you wouldn't be labeling me by my skin color. What a hypocrite you are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So why would he be about to sign an amendment that would make slavery legal for eternity right before the Civil War? What changed?

His conscience.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You ever think about that seriously? Why not freedom proclamation?

The definition of the word "emancipate" is to "make free" to "liberate", to "let loose".

I don't see it necessary to parse words, do you?

The US names thing a certain way for a reason. It comes from a Latin word that means "transfer property" Basically the enslaved were transferred to the government as property.

early 17th century: from Latin emancipat- ‘transferred as property’, from the verb emancipare, from e- (variant of ex- ) ‘out’ + mancipium ‘slave’

Please. You are making this all too easy.

 

[Asclepias]

So why would he be about to sign an amendment that would make slavery legal for eternity right before the Civil War? What changed?

His conscience.

so you agree he was a racist?

 

[Asclepias]

You ever think about that seriously? Why not freedom proclamation?

The definition of the word "emancipate" is to "make free" to "liberate", to "let loose".

I don't see it necessary to parse words, do you?

The US names thing a certain way for a reason. It comes from a Latin word that means "transfer property" Basically the enslaved were transferred to the government as property.

early 17th century: from Latin emancipat- ‘transferred as property’, from the verb emancipare, from e- (variant of ex- ) ‘out’ + mancipium ‘slave’

Please. You are making this all to easy.

Thank me later.

 

[TemplarKormac]

so you agree he was a racist?

At one point maybe. Not when he freed the slaves. If he still was, it took great courage to go against his beliefs and free them. Nevermind he was assassinated for his trouble.

You ever think about that seriously? Why not freedom proclamation?

The definition of the word "emancipate" is to "make free" to "liberate", to "let loose".

I don't see it necessary to parse words, do you?

The US names thing a certain way for a reason. It comes from a Latin word that means "transfer property" Basically the enslaved were transferred to the government as property.

early 17th century: from Latin emancipat- ‘transferred as property’, from the verb emancipare, from e- (variant of ex- ) ‘out’ + mancipium ‘slave’

Please. You are making this all to easy.

Thank me later.

Read the post again, edited.

 

[IM2]

That's not how racism works in 2020 and you know it.

Are you telling me that racism should work in only the ways YOU want it to?

Is that what I'm getting?

Looks to me like he is telling you that you have no clue about racism.

Hardly. And you assume you know everything about it because of your skin color?

How idiotic.

Turn black and live 5 years then tell us how much we don't know.

I lived 3 miles from the projects. 'Pauldoe' is was called. Every few months there seemed to be an incident there involving people firing off guns or getting into fights or doing drugs. This was a thing for a better part of 20 years. A great deal of the blacks in my city lived there.

I also went to school with a black girl that lived there. I distinctly remember one day fifteen years ago on the bus home her telling me how afraid she was, not of the cops, but of the violence and the drug dealing going on there, and she wanted to move away so badly, but her parents could not afford a mortgage.

I know all about it. I've gotten first hand testimony.

See, even as a teenager, I made efforts to educate myself about what racism is and isn't.

And it is clearly evident to me you know nothing about racism. Period. Full stop.

No you don't have first hand anything. I'm black and have lived through several iterations of white racism. You're telling me the white boy tale about things. But 15 years ago you did not talk to black adults about their concerns relative to job opportunities for youth that would reduce crime and provide alternatives to drugs sales. That's the discussion I was having 15 years ago white boy, so shut your fucking mouth.

You don't know what I did.

MLK was and is still my role model. A BLACK MAN. Because he was smart enough to understand the injustice of racism and employ a dialogue with those who practiced it. He was assassinated for it, and for that, everyone who followed him disregarded urges for nonviolent dialogue and tore America apart in 1968. Just like how these protests initially began.

I will speak my mind, and you will listen (or don't, you can freely leave this thread any time you want to, O oppressed one.)

I know exactly what you did and I showed it to you. Try not telling me about the 60's boy, I was alive to see it. King was not the only leader, King was not the first to start a dialogue about racism in the United States.

THIS, is the greatest anti racism speech in the history of this country.

What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?

In 1852, the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Association invited abolitionist, activist and statesman Frederick Douglass to speak at their July Fourth Independence Day Celebration in Rochester, N.Y.

He refused.

But he agreed to speak on July 5 instead.

Before an audience composed of Washington politicians, white abolitionists, and President Millard Fillmore, Douglass presented what still stands as one of history’s greatest example of speaking truth to power. Douglass’ unapologetic criticism of America’s hypocrisy still rings true to this very day.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?

Read the full text of Frederick Douglass' iconic speech.

www.theroot.com

You know NOTHING about this. Spare me your light and illiterate knowledge of Dr. King for if he was truly your role model and not a lie you're posting online in order to try dismissing your obvious racism, you would not have started this thread. My father was a minister and he met with Dr King when he visited our town.

The white man who murdered king, like the whites who were blowing up churches killing children are what tore America apart and in standard white racist fashion you ignore that.

 

[IM2]

so you agree he was a racist?

At one point maybe. Not when he freed the slaves. If he still was, it took great courage to go against his beliefs and free them. Nevermind he was assassinated for his trouble.

You ever think about that seriously? Why not freedom proclamation?

The definition of the word "emancipate" is to "make free" to "liberate", to "let loose".

I don't see it necessary to parse words, do you?

The US names thing a certain way for a reason. It comes from a Latin word that means "transfer property" Basically the enslaved were transferred to the government as property.

early 17th century: from Latin emancipat- ‘transferred as property’, from the verb emancipare, from e- (variant of ex- ) ‘out’ + mancipium ‘slave’

Please. You are making this all to easy.

Thank me later.

Read the post again, edited.

Lincoln stayed a racist until the end of his days.

When President Abraham Lincoln met with free black leaders in 1862, what did he propose?

Here’s how he addressed the free black delegation: “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”

This is the Abraham Lincoln they didn’t tell you about in school.

As the free black leaders soon discovered, Lincoln’s invitation to discuss policy was a pretext for a one-sided sales pitch.

“I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal,” Lincoln continued. “I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you.”

Lincoln continued to unload on the delegates, even blaming their people for the Civil War at his doorstep: “See our present condition—the country engaged in war!—our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.”

This brought the president back to colonization, and his purpose for inviting the delegates to the White House in the first place—to get them to accept his trial balloon.

“I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it,” Lincoln reasoned. “You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.”

Then he pivoted: “But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves.”

In Lincoln’s mind, if these free leaders stepped forward to lead the emigration of black people out of the United States, that would make it easier for white slaveholders to free the rest.

He explained: “If you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.”

Nothing like flattering some of the race by insulting the rest!

“There is much to encourage you,” Lincoln continued pitching. “For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people.”

Lincoln even laid a George Washington guilt trip on them, even though, based on what he was saying, they weren’t really American enough to claim the liberties Washington had secured. “In the American Revolutionary war,” he told them, “sacrifices were made by men engaged in it; but they were cheered by the future. Gen. Washington himself endured greater physical hardships than if he had remained a British subject. Yet he was a happy man, because he was engaged in benefiting his race.”

After reviewing the pros and cons of Africa as a destination, Lincoln started pushing Central America as his destination of choice. After all, he said, Liberia was far from African Americans’ birthplace in the United States, and even if they weren’t all that fond of white people, he could understand wanting to be close to their forcibly adopted “motherland.”

“It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love [white people],” he said, exempting himself. “But still you are attached to them at all events.”

As crazy as it sounds now, Central America fit the bill for Lincoln, because, as he explained, “t is nearer to us than Liberia—not much more than one-fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days' run by steamers. Unlike Liberia it is on a great line of travel—it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land—thus being suited to your physical condition.”

Here was the old Thomas Jefferson canard with a Central American twist: Despite years of forced interracial mixing on Southern plantations, African Americans somehow were, in Lincoln’s estimation, more physically suited for certain geographies over white people—namely, hot places. Lincoln even had a specific industry in mind once the free black leaders and their families arrived in Central America: “rich coal mines.”

“Coal land is the best thing I know of with which to commence an enterprise,” Lincoln argued. And one thing white and black people had in common was that they “look to their self-interest.”

It’s odd to us, obviously, that Lincoln minimized the brutal conditions of coal mining (though, at that point, Charles Dickens’ Bleak House had been out for 10 years). Yet it was no more odd than Lincoln’s way of appealing to African-American leaders based on shared American values (steeped as they were in the teachings of Benjamin Franklin and others) in an effort to get them to quit the country on which those values were founded.

For his close, Lincoln told the delegates, “If you will engage in the enterprise I will spend some of the money intrusted [sic] to me. I am not sure you will succeed. The Government may lose the money, but we cannot succeed unless we try; but we think, with care, we can succeed.” Bottom line: Lincoln needed them to enlist.

“If I could find twenty-five able-bodied men,” he said, “with a mixture of women and children, good things in the family relation, I think I could make a successful commencement.” (What he didn’t tell them was that he had already been moving the pieces into place behind the scenes for a specific landing at Chiriquí, today a province of Panama but then part of Colombia. The plan had the potential to relocate more than 10,000 free blacks to a colony the U.S. government would purchase. You can read more about Chiriquí in Foner’s book.)

With that, the president left them to think about it … “for the good of mankind.”

Did Lincoln Want to Ship Black People Back to Africa?

Editor’s note: This article was originally published Sept. 22, 2014. For those who are wondering about the retro title of this black-history series, please take a moment to learn about historian Joel A. Rogers, author of the 1934 book 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro With Complete Proof, to...

www.theroot.com

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

MythAll white people are inherently beneficiaries of “white privilege.”

Fact: The Left’s “white privilege” narrative is false, used to divide and silence, and promotes racist assumptions.

But the Left suggests that because America has been replete with racism and bigotry historically, that means that racism pervades American society now.

Not because "America has been replete with racism and bigotry" but because it continues to this day: Race Based Housing Discrimination (EEOC is below)

	Case Name	Case Number	Date Issued ​
1.	Sec. v. Aylett, Jess	HUDALJ 08-90-0283-1	05/24/93​
	Sec. v. Aylett, Jess (2nd Remand)	HUDALJ 08-90-0283-1	01/05/94​
	Sec. v. Aylett, Jess (Remand)	HUDALJ 08-90-0283-1	10/21/93​
2.	Sec. v. Banai, Annette & Janos	HUDALJ 04-93-2060-8	02/03/95​
3.	Sec. v. Bangs, Timothy	HUDALJ 05-90-0293-1	01/05/93​
4.	Sec. v. Blackwell, Gordon	HUDALJ 04-89-0520-1	12/21/89​
5.	Sec. v. Cabusora, Martha & Felino	HUDALJ 09-90-1138-1	03/23/92​
6.	Sec. v. Corrigan, Ann	HUDALJ 07-92-0591-1	10/24/94​
7.	Sec. v. Cox, John E.	HUDALJ 09-89-1641-1 HUDALJ 09-89-1642-1 HUDALJ 09-89-1709-1	09/26/91​
8.	Sec. v. Fung, Chak Man & Jennifer Ho	HUDALJ 07-053-FH	01/31/08​
9.	Sec. v. Gaultney, Eugene	HUDALJ 04-88-0587-1	09/27/91​
10.	Sec. v. Gruzdaitis, Joseph	HUDALJ 02-96-0377-8	08/14/98​
11.	Sec. v. Gunderson, Florence	HUDALJ 05-98-0298-8 HUDALJ 05-98-0715-8	08/25/99​
	Sec. v. Gunderson, Florence (REMAND)	HUDALJ 05-98-0298-8 HUDALJ 05-98-0715-8	08/14/00​
12.	Sec. v. Gutleben, Violet M.	HUDALJ 09-92-1893-1	08/15/94​
13.	Sec. v. Gwizdz, Maria	HUDALJ 05-92-0061-8	11/01/94​
14.	Sec. v. Hope, Chris	HUDALJ 04-99-3640-8 HUDALJ 04-99-3509-8	05/08/02​
15.	Sec. v. Housing Authority of City of Las Vegas	HUDALJ 09-94-1016-8	11/06/95​
16.	Sec. v. Housing Authority of the City of Reno	HUDALJ 09-97-1291-8	06/19/02​
17.	Sec. v. Ineichen, Bernard	HUDALJ 05-93-0143-1	04/04/95​
18.	Sec. v. Jancik, Stanley	HUDALJ 05-91-0969-1	10/01/93​
19.	Sec. v. Jerrard, Virginia	HUDALJ 04-88-0612-1	09/28/90​
20.	Sec. v. Johnson, Edith Marie	HUDALJ 06-93-1316-8 HUDALJ 06-93-1262-8	07/26/94​
21.	Sec. v. Kocerka, Christopher	HUDALJ 05-94-0537-8	05/04/99​
22.	Sec. v. Kolgjeraj, Luz	HUDALJ 05-93-0761-1	04/27/95​
23.	Sec. v. Lashley, Joseph	HUDALJ 04-90-0766-1	12/07/92​
24.	Sec. v. Leiner, Shirley and Abraham	HUDLAJ 02-90-0051-1	01/03/92​
25.	Sec. v. Lewis, Barry	HUDALJ 04-94-0227-8	04/19/96​
26.	Sec. v. Lewis, Vera	HUDALJ 07-91-0055-1	08/27/92​
27.	Sec. v. Maze, Phillip and Opal Minnie	HUDALJ 10-M-015-FH-4	01/28/11​
28.	Sec. v. Maze, Philip and Opal Minnie (REMAND)	HUDALJ 10-M-015-FH-4	04/26/11​
29.	Sec. v. Maze, Philip and Opal Minnie (Secretarial Review)	HUDALJ 10-M-015-FH-4	02/25/11​
30.	Sec. v. Maze, Philip & Opal (2nd Secretarial Review)	HUDALJ 10-M-015-FH-4	03/25/11​
31.	Sec. v. Medige, Margaret	HUDALJ 02-93-0173-1	09/09/94​
32.	Sec. v. Narlis, Alex	HUDALJ 06-89-0182-1	09/11/90​
33.	Sec. v. Ramapo Towers Owners Corp	HUDALJ 02-94-0486-8 HUDALJ 02-95-0008-8	10/07/96​
34.	Sec. v. Ro, Duk Hee	HUDLAJ 03-93-0313-8	06/02/95​
35.	Sec. v. Roberts, Margaret	HUDALJ 02-98-0775-8 HUDALJ 02-99-0042-8 HUDALJ 02-99-0043-8	01/19/01​
36.	Sec. v. Schilling, Donald E.	HUDALJ 04-92-0440-1	07/15/93​
37.	Sec. v. Senator Realty	HUDALJ 02-92-0280-8	03/20/97​
38.	Sec. v. Senior Nevada Benefit Group, L.P.	HUDALJ 09-01-0380-8	10/17/03​
39.	Sec. v. Senior Nevada Benefit Group, L.P. (ORDER CLARIFYING AWARD)	HUDALJ 09-01-0380-8	11/12/03​
40.	Sec. v. Senior Nevada Benefit Group, L.P. (REMAND)	HUDALJ 09-01-0380-8	03/05/94​
41.	Sec. v. Senior Nevada Benefit Group, L.P. (Secretarial REMAND)	HUDALJ 09-01-0380-8	09/17/04​
42.	Sec. v. Sparks, Michael	HUDALJ 05-92-1274-8	02/14/03​
43.	Sec. v. Timmons, Cecil D.	HUDALJ 05-98-1000-8 HUDALJ 05-98-1476-8	11/16/00​
44.	Sec. v. Tucker, Brandy	HUDALJ 09-90-1008-1 HUDALJ 09-90-1009-1	08/24/92​
45.	Sec. v. Tucker, Silas	HUDALJ 04-98-0332-8	08/14/02​
46.	Sec. v. Ucci, Anthony	HUDALJ 02-94-0016-8	03/17/95​
47.	Sec. v. Weber, Jean	HUDALJ 05-91-0819-1	02/18/93​
48.	Sec. v. Wilson, Ryan	HUDALJ 03-98-0692-8	07/19/00​
49.	Williams V. Quang Dangtran, Ha Nguyen, and HQD Enterprise, LLC Ruling on Summary Judgment	19-AF-0148-FH-015	10/24/19​
50.	Williams V. Quang Dangtran, Ha Nguyen, and HQD Enterprise, LLC Ruling for Interlocutory Review	19-AF-0148-FH-015	10/24/19​

Race | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

EEOC Race based cases settled (only about 20% of them fit in the response box)
Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases(Covering Private and Federal Sectors)

In enforcing Title VII's prohibition of race and color discrimination, the EEOC has filed, resolved, and adjudicated a number of cases since 1964. Under the E-RACE Initiative, the Commission continues to be focused on the eradication of race and color discrimination from the 21st century workplace and is seeking to retool its enforcement efforts to address contemporary forms of overt, subtle and implicit bias. Below is an inexhaustive list of significant EEOC private or federal sector cases from 2003 to present. These cases illustrate some of the common, novel, systemic and emerging issues in the realm of race and color discrimination.
Contents

• E-RACE And Other EEOC Initiatives
  • Systemic
  • Youth@ Work
• Employment Practices
  • Hiring
  • Customer Preference
  • Hispanic/Foreign Preference
  • Job Segregation
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Compensation Disparity
  • Hostile Work Environment
  • Retaliation
  • Discharge
• Types of Race/Color Discrimination
  • Color Discrimination
  • Reverse Discrimination
  • Same Race Discrimination
  • Intersectional Discrimination/Harassment
  • Associational Discrimination
  • Biracial Discrimination
  • Code Words

E-RACE AND OTHER EEOC INITIATIVES
Systemic

• In December 2017, Laquila Group Inc., a Brooklyn-based construction company, paid $625,000 into a class settlement fund and took measures to eliminate race bias and retaliation against black construction laborers. In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Laquila engaged in systemic discrimination against black employees as a class by subjecting them to racial harassment, including referring to them using the N-word, "gorilla," and similar epithets. The Commission also alleged that the company fired an employee who complained about the harassment. The consent decree also requires Laquila to set up a hotline for employees to report illegal discrimination, provide anti-discrimination training to its managers, adopt revised anti-discrimination policies and employee complaint procedures and report all worker harassment and retaliation complaints to the EEOC for the 42-month duration of the agreement. EEOC v. The Laquila Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-05194 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree approved Dec. 1, 2017).
• In November 2017, after an extensive five-year, complicated systemic investigation and settlement efforts, the EEOC reached an agreement with Lone Star Community College covering recruitment, hiring and mentoring of African-American and Hispanic applicants and employees. The terms of the agreement were designed to enhance the College's commitment to the recruitment of African-American and Hispanics and to engage in meaningful monitoring of the College's efforts to reach its recruitment and hiring goals. The agreement included some novel relief, such as: implementation of a new applicant tracking system; establishing an advisory committee focused on the recruitment, development and retention of minority groups; hiring of recruitment firms; developing new interview protocol training; establishing a mentoring program for recently hired minority employees; and updating job descriptions for all college manager positions to require as a job component the diversity of its workforce.
• In August 2017, Ford Motor Company agreed to pay nearly $10.125 million to settle sex and race harassment investigation by the EEOC at two Ford plants in Chicago area. In its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that personnel at two Ford facilities in the Chicago area, the Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant, had subjected female and African-American employees to sexual and racial harassment. The EEOC also found that the company retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment or discrimination. In addition to the monetary relief, the conciliation agreement provides ensures that during the next five years, Ford will conduct regular training at the two Chicago-area facilities; continue to disseminate its anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and procedures to employees and new hires; report to EEOC regarding complaints of harassment and/or related discrimination; and monitor its workforce regarding issues of alleged sexual or racial harassment and related discrimination.
• In July 2017, Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to pay $10.5 million to a class of African-American and Hispanic workers the EEOC alleged it discriminated against by failing to hire because of their race and/or national origin in violation of Title VII. According to the consent decree, Bass Pro will engage in good faith efforts to increase diversity by reaching out to minority colleges and technical schools, participating in job fairs in communities with large minority populations and post job openings in publications popular among Black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, every six months for the next 42 months, Bass Pro is to report to the EEOC its hiring rates on a store-by-store basis. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, Case No. 4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. consent decree filed July 24, 2017).
• In June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels. The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each facility covered by the agreement.
• In May 2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).
• In April 2017, Sealy of Minnesota paid $175,000 to resolve a charge of racial harassment filed with the EEOC. An investigation by the EEOC's Minneapolis Area Office revealed that the mattress and box spring manufacturing company in St. Paul, Minn. subjected its Black and Hispanic employees to severe racial harassment in the form of KKK hoods, nooses, and racial slurs and jokes. The agency also found that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic employees in the selection of lead positions at the St. Paul facility. EEOC v. Sealy of Minn., (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2017).
• In December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
• In August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys. & New Mercer Commons, Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
• In June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J., involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally, the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation, the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc., C.A. No. No. 2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
• In April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April 1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
• In December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant, including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara Lee Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15).
• In October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis, and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII. In September 2012, the judge entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records. The court also enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to: (1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3) allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and (7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded $50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015) (fee ruling).
• In September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56 known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8, 2015).
• In August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary relief.
• In March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for $12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
• In January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska. Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
• In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities, they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp., No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
• In December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree filed Dec. 1, 2014).
• In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000 for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race, and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
• In November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment, requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received, as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp., No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).
• In October 2014, Prestige Transportation Service L.L.C., a Miami company that provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami International Airport, paid $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in connection with actions allegedly committed under different ownership. The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige's predecessor company, Airbus Alliance Inc., repeatedly instructed its human resource manager to not hire African-American applicants because they were "trouble" and "would sue the company." EEOC v. Prestige Transp. Service L.L.C., No. 1:13-cv-20684(JEM) (S.D. Fla. consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2014).
• In September 2014, McCormick & Schmick's settled a 2008 EEOC lawsuit, alleging a pattern or practice of race discrimination against African-American job applicants by refusing to hire them for front-of-the-house positions and by denying equal work assignments because of their race. The consent decree established a claims fund of $1.3 million and provides substantial injunctive relief, including goals for hiring of Black job applicants for front-of-the-house positions, targeted recruitment efforts, and extensive self-assessment of hiring and work assignment practices to ensure non-discrimination and compliance with the terms of the consent decree. McCormick & Schmick's also must designate an outside monitor to oversee compliance with the consent decree and submit reports to the EEOC. EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. and McCormick and Schmick Restaurant Corporation, No. WMN-09-cv-984 (D. Md. Sep. 12, 2014).
• In September 2013, U-Haul agreed to pay $750,000 to eight African-American current and former employees and to provide other relief to settle a race and retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Black employees were subjected to racial slurs and other racially offensive comments by their White supervisor, at U-Haul's Memphis facility. The EEOC's complaint charged that the supervisor regularly referred to Black employees with the "N" word and other derogatory slurs. The suit further alleged that the company engaged in retaliation by firing one employee when he complained of racial harassment to the company president. Under the two-year consent decree, U-Haul Company of Tennessee must maintain an anti-discrimination policy prohibiting race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation, and provide mandatory training to all employees regarding the policy. Additionally, the marketing company president will receive training on race discrimination and on obligations to report race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation. Finally, the company will provide written reports to the EEOC regarding any race discrimination or racial harassment complaints by employees. EEOC v. U-Haul Co. Int'l & U-Haul Co. of Tenn., No. 2:11-cv-02844 (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 25, 2013).
• In September 2013, a Kentucky coal mining company paid $245,000 to 19 total applicants and amend its hiring practices to settle a racial discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. River View Coal LLC, a unit of Alliance Resource Partners LP, also will have to regularly report to the EEOC on its hiring practices for two years to escape the suit, which alleged that the company refused to hire a class of African-American applicants for coal mining jobs at its Waverly, Ky., location since 2008. The consent decree also requires River View to refrain from any future racial discrimination in its hiring procedures. EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC, No. 4:11-cv-00117(JHM)(HBB) (W.D. Ky. Sep. 26, 2013).
• In December 2012, a South Dallas, TX mill agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of 14 Black employees to settle an EEOC race discrimination suit alleging that the mill exposed Black employees to violent, racist graffiti and racial slurs by co-workers, such as "KKK," swastikas, Confederate flags, "white power" and other racist terms, including "die, n----r, die," as well as the display of nooses at an employee workstation. Black employees alleged that the supervisors allowed the behavior to continue unchecked. The consent decree permanently enjoins the company from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and requires the company to enact a graffiti abatement policy and undergo annual reviews of its compliance for two years EEOC v. Rock-Tenn Services Co., No. 3:10-cv-01960 (N.D. Tex. filed Sep. 29, 2012).
• In November 2012, a federal court ordered Caldwell Freight Lines, a now defunct company, to pay $120,000 to settle a race discrimination complaint stemming from its alleged refusal to hire Black applicants to work on its loading dock even though it is no longer in business. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, 51 African American applicants sought work with Caldwell Freight and none was hired even though many had previous dock experience and were qualified for the positions. An EEOC investigation revealed that the company hired no Black dock workers during the period studied and that one high-level manager allegedly said he "didn't want any lacks on the dock." Under the terms of the consent decree, if the company resumes operations, it will have to implement an anti-discrimination policy and report to the EEOC all discrimination complaints and information regarding its hiring practices during the term of the decree. EEOC v. Caldwell Freight Lines, Case No. 5:11CV00134 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2012).
• In October 2012, a federal district court in Texas ordered AA Foundries Inc. to take specific measures to prevent racial harassment of Black employees at its San Antonio plant following a $200,000 jury verdict finding the company liable for race discrimination under Title VII. According to the EEOC, evidence at trial indicated that a White supervisor used "the N word" in reference to Black employees, called male Black employees "motherfucking boys," posted racially tinged materials in an employee break room, and accused Black employees of "always stealing and wanting welfare." After several employees filed racial harassment charges with the EEOC, a noose was displayed in the workplace. When some employees complained, the supervisor allegedly replied the noose was "no big deal" and that workers who complained were "too sensitive." Additionally, at trial, he also admitted it did not bother him to hear racially derogatory language in the workplace. In a judgment entered Oct. 9, the district court upheld the jury verdict that AA Foundries must pay punitive damages of $100,000 to former employee Christopher Strickland, $60,000 to former employee Leroy Beal, and $40,000 to former employee Kenneth Bacon. Because trial evidence also showed that AA Foundries lacked effective internal procedures to handle discrimination complaints, it must conduct at least one hour of equal employment opportunity training for all employees within 60 days of the court's Oct. 9 order. The company must distribute copies of its revised written anti-harassment policy to all current and future employees and post the policy in the break room of its San Antonio manufacturing facility. Every employee shall be notified of the procedure for initiating racial harassment or other bias complaints, including notice of their right to file EEOC charges if the company does not resolve their complaint. EEOC v. AA Foundries Inc., No. 11-792 (W.D. Tex. judgment and injunction entered Oct. 9, 2012).
• In September 2012, two California-based trucking firms agreed to settle for $630,000 an EEOC lawsuit alleging one company violated Title VII by permitting the harassment of African American, Latino, and East Indian workers and by otherwise discriminating based on race, national origin, and religion. In its original complaint, EEOC alleged that since at least 2003, management officials and employees at Scully Distribution referred to Black drivers as "*******," East Indian drivers as "Taliban" and "camel jockeys," and a Latino manager as a "****." EEOC also charged Scully gave non-White drivers less favorable job assignments than their White counterparts. EEOC claimed Scully also fired one of the three employees who filed EEOC charges complaining about the alleged harassment in retaliation for his protected activity. Scully denied all of EEOC's allegations, but it and its successor Ryder System Inc. agreed to resolve the suit. EEOC v. Scully Distribution Servs. Inc., No. 11-cv-08090 (C.D. Cal. proposed consent decree filed Sep. 25, 2012).
• In August 2012, a Tampa, Fla.-based environmental services company agreed to settle a race discrimination and harassment case brought by the EEOC and eleven intervening plaintiffs for $2,750,000 and other relief. In the lawsuit, EEOC alleged that the harassment of African American employees included multiple displays of nooses, the repeated use of the "N-word," and physical threats. The EEOC also claimed that four White employees were harassed by their White co-workers because they associated with African-American employees. Two African-American employees also alleged they were fired because of their race and two White employees asserted they were fired for engaging in protected activity and in retaliation for associating with African-American employees. At summary judgment, the district court denied in part the company's motion, stating that the company ignored both the extreme symbolism of a noose and that a reasonable jury could conclude that the worksite had at least some racial tension given the other nooses, threats, and racial epithets that each African-American employee experienced, and that the noose was intended to intimidate all African-Americans. The court also found that a reasonable jury could decide that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent or remedy the harassment since it did not distribute its written policy forbidding racial harassment to its employees, post it at the job-site, or train the employees about what constitutes harassment and how to report it. The court, however, determined that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims brought on behalf of the White employees because injury must be personal and thus a White employee cannot sue for harassment of African-American employees that the White employee happened to see. Lastly, intervening Plaintiff provided direct evidence that the supervisor who fired him did so because of his race (through the supervisor's comment that he could get rid of "that . . . ******. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110149 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2011). Although the company denied liability for the harassment, the three-year consent decree enjoins the company from engaging in further retaliation, race discrimination, or racial harassment, including associational bias. The company also must revise its anti-discrimination policy; provide employee training on the revised policy; and develop a procedure for investigating complaints of race discrimination and harassment and evaluating supervisors' compliance with the revised anti-discrimination policy. EEOC v. WRS Infrastructure and Env't Inc. d/b/a WRS Compass, No. 1:09-cv-4272 (N.D. Ill. consent decree filed Aug. 23, 2012).
• In June 2012, Yellow Transportation Inc. and YRC Inc. agreed to settle for $11 million an EEOC suit alleging that the trucking companies permitted the racial harassment of Black employees at a now-closed Chicago Ridge, Ill., facility. The proposed consent decree would settle both EEOC's suit and a private suit filed in 2008 by 14 Black employees under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), which were consolidated for purposes of settlement. In its complaint, the EEOC claimed that Black employees at the Chicago Ridge facility, which closed in 2009, were subjected to multiple incidents of hangman's nooses and racist graffiti, comments, and cartoons. EEOC claimed that Yellow and YRC also subjected Black employees to harsher discipline and closer scrutiny than their White counterparts and gave Black employees more difficult and time-consuming work assignments. Although numerous Black employees complained about these conditions, Yellow and YRC failed to act to correct the problems, EEOC alleged. The court granted preliminary approval of a proposed consent decree, but it must grant final approval following a fairness hearing before the decree takes effect. EEOC v. Yellow Transp. Inc., No. 09 CV 7693 (N.D. Ill. preliminary approval granted June 28, 2012).
• In January 2012, Pepsi Beverages Company, formerly known as Pepsi Bottling Group, agreed in a post-investigation conciliation to pay $3.13 million and provide training and job offers to victims of the former criminal background check policy to resolve an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination in hiring. "The EEOC's investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded Black applicants from permanent employment. Under Pepsi's former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense." Additionally, "Pepsi's former policy also denied employment to applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. The use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity."
• In December 2011, a New York City retail-wholesale fish market agreed to pay $900,000 and institute anti-discrimination measures to settle an EEOC lawsuit charging it with creating a hostile work environment for Black and African male employees. The lawsuit alleged that management at the company's Brooklyn facility routinely subjected more than 30 Black and African male loaders and drivers to sexual and racial harassment and retaliated against employees who complained. The harassment was both physical and verbal and included offensive comments based on race and national origin such as "******" and "African bastard" as well as explicit sexual expressions. The Commission also alleged that the company engaged in retaliation against workers who joined in the complaint. In addition to the monetary relief, M. Slavin agreed to submit to 5 years of monitoring by the EEOC; retain an independent EEO coordinator to investigate complaints; conduct one-on-one training for the worst harassers; and provide annual training for all staff. EEOC v. M. Slavin & Sons Ltd., No. 09-5330 (E.D.N.Y. filed consent decree 12/15/11).
• In December 2010, Roadway Express, a less-than-truckload motor carrier with terminals throughout North America, settled the claims of two lawsuits alleging racial harassment of Black employees and race discrimination in terms and conditions of employment at two Illinois facilities. The claims included: (1) awarding Black employees less favorable assignments (both terminals); (2) assigning them more difficult and demanding work (both terminals); (3) enforcing break times more stringently (Chicago Heights); (4) subjecting their work to heightened scrutiny (Chicago Heights); and (5) disciplining them for minor misconduct (both terminals). Roadway also assigned Chicago Heights employees to segregated work groups. The 5-year decree, which applies to Roadway and YRC, Roadway's identity after it merged with Yellow Transportation, includes $10 million in monetary relief, $8.5 million to be paid upon preliminary approval of the decree and the remainder in three subsequent installments due on or before November 1 of 2011, 2012, and 2013. In addition to prohibiting race discrimination and retaliation against Black employees at YRC's Chicago Heights facility, the decree also requires YRC to provide all Chicago Heights employees annual training on racial harassment and race discrimination and engage a Work Assignment Consultant and a Disciplinary Practice Consultant to assist it in reviewing and revising the company's work assignment and disciplinary policies and practices at the Chicago facility. EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc., and YRC, Inc., Nos. 06-CV-4805 and 08-CV-5555 and Bandy v. Roadway Express, Inc., and YRC, Inc., No. 10-CV-5304 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2010).
• In October 2010, Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., (AFP) a producer and distributor of corrugated box and cushion packaging, agreed to pay $600,000 to resolve a number of racial and sexual harassment charges. In pertinent part, the EEOC alleged that Black employees at AFP were subjected to intimidation, ridicule, insults, racially offensive comments and jokes, and cartoons and images that denigrated African-Americans. White employees and managers regularly emailed racially derogatory jokes, cartoons, and other materials to coworkers, and posted racially offensive photographs on the bulletin board outside the human resources office. They also engaged in threatening and intimidating conduct toward Black employees, such as tampering with the brake lines and air hoses of one CP's truck. The 2-year consent decree also enjoins race and sex (male) discrimination under Title VII, as well as retaliation. Defendant will submit to EEOC an EEO policy that prohibits race and sex discrimination and retaliation. Defendant will file annual audit reports with the EEOC summarizing each complaint of race or sex (male) discrimination, or retaliation, it receives at its Pfluggerville, Texas location and its disposition. EEOC v. Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-00180 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2010).
• In September 2010, a mineral company agreed to pay $440,000 and other relief to settle a class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. Allegedly, the company disciplined an African-American quality control supervisor for having facial hair and using a cell phone during work, while Caucasian employees were not reprimanded for similar conduct. In addition to management subjecting the Black supervisor to heightened and unfair scrutiny, the company moved his office to the basement, while White employees holding the same position were moved to higher floors. Other African-American employees were subjected to racial harassment, such as a White supervisor placing a hangman's noose on a piece of machinery. EEOC v. Mineral Met, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-02199 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2010).
• In August 2010, the EEOC and the largest commercial roofing contractor in New York state settled for $1 million an EEOC suit alleging the company discriminated against a class of Black workers through verbal harassment, denials of promotion, and unfair work assignments. According to the lawsuit, EEOC alleged from at least 1993 to the present, a White foreman repeatedly used racial slurs toward Black workers, that the company assigned Black employees to the most difficult, dirty, and least desirable jobs, that the roofing contractor systematically excluded Black employees from promotion opportunities, and that the company retaliated against those who complained. Additionally, nooses were displayed and portable toilets featured racially offensive graffiti with swastikas and "KKK" references at the job sites, EEOC alleged. Although it admitted no wrongdoing and said that it settled the case for financial reasons, the company agreed to hire an equal employment opportunity coordinator to provide employee EEO training, monitor future race discrimination complaints, and file periodic reports with EEOC regarding hiring, layoffs, and promotions. EEOC v. Elmer W. Davis Inc., No. 07-CV-06434 (W.D.N.Y. consent decree filed Aug. 10, 2010).
• In December 2009, a national grocery chain paid $8.9 million to resolve three lawsuits collectively alleging race, color, national origin and retaliation discrimination, affecting 168 former and current employees. According to the lawsuits, minority employees were repeatedly subjected to derogatory comments and graffiti. Blacks were termed "n-----s" and Hispanics termed "s---s;" offensive graffiti in the men's restroom, which included racial and ethnic slurs, depictions of lynchings, swastikas, and White supremacist and anti-immigrant statements, was so offensive that several employees would relieve themselves outside the building or go home at lunchtime rather than use the restroom. Black and Hispanic employees also were allegedly given harder work assignments and were more frequently and severely disciplined than their Caucasian co-workers. Lastly, EEOC asserted that dozens of employees complained about the discriminatory treatment and harassment and were subsequently given the harder job assignments, were passed over for promotion and even fired as retaliation. EEOC v. Albertsons LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-01273, No. 08-cv-00640, and No. 08-cv-02424 (D. Colo 2009).

Continued here:
Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases(Covering Private and Federal Sectors) | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's not how racism works in 2020 and you know it.

Are you telling me that racism should work in only the ways YOU want it to?

Is that what I'm getting?

Looks to me like he is telling you that you have no clue about racism.

Hardly. And you assume you know everything about it because of your skin color?

How idiotic.

Turn black and live 5 years then tell us how much we don't know.

I lived 3 miles from the projects. 'Pauldoe' is was called. Every few months there seemed to be an incident there involving people firing off guns or getting into fights or doing drugs. This was a thing for a better part of 20 years. A great deal of the blacks in my city lived there.

I also went to school with a black girl that lived there. I distinctly remember one day fifteen years ago on the bus home her telling me how afraid she was, not of the cops, but of the violence and the drug dealing going on there, and she wanted to move away so badly, but her parents could not afford a mortgage.

I know all about it. I've gotten first hand testimony.

See, even as a teenager, I made efforts to educate myself about what racism is and isn't.

And it is clearly evident to me you know nothing about racism. Period. Full stop.

No you don't have first hand anything. I'm black and have lived through several iterations of white racism. You're telling me the white boy tale about things. But 15 years ago you did not talk to black adults about their concerns relative to job opportunities for youth that would reduce crime and provide alternatives to drugs sales. That's the discussion I was having 15 years ago white boy, so shut your fucking mouth.

You don't know what I did.

MLK was and is still my role model. A BLACK MAN. Because he was smart enough to understand the injustice of racism and employ a dialogue with those who practiced it. He was assassinated for it, and for that, everyone who followed him disregarded urges for nonviolent dialogue and tore America apart in 1968. Just like how these protests initially began.

I will speak my mind, and you will listen (or don't, you can freely leave this thread any time you want to, O oppressed one.)

I know exactly what you did and I showed it to you. Try not telling me about the 60's boy, I was alive to see it. King was not the only leader, King was not the first to start a dialogue about racism in the United States.

THIS, is the greatest anti racism speech in the history of this country.

What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?

View attachment 347323


In 1852, the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Association invited abolitionist, activist and statesman Frederick Douglass to speak at their July Fourth Independence Day Celebration in Rochester, N.Y.

He refused.

But he agreed to speak on July 5 instead.

Before an audience composed of Washington politicians, white abolitionists, and President Millard Fillmore, Douglass presented what still stands as one of history’s greatest example of speaking truth to power. Douglass’ unapologetic criticism of America’s hypocrisy still rings true to this very day.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?

Read the full text of Frederick Douglass' iconic speech.

www.theroot.com

You know NOTHING about this. Spare me your light and illiterate knowledge of Dr. King for if he was truly your role model and not a lie you're posting online in order to try dismissing your obvious racism, you would not have started this thread. My father was a minister and he met with Dr King when he visited our town.

The white man who murdered king, like the whites who were blowing up churches killing children are what tore America apart and in standard white racist fashion you ignore that.

Curious, he played a critical role in freeing the slaves:

"Abraham Lincoln… in his own peculiar, cautious, forbearing and hesitating way, slow, but we hope sure, has, while the loyal heart was near breaking with despair, proclaimed and declared: That on the First of January, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-three, All Persons Held as Slaves Within Any State or Any Designated Part of a State, The People Whereof Shall Then be in Rebellion Against the United States, Shall be Thenceforward and Forever Free."

Frederick Douglass, January 1, 1863

A white man murdered another white man for freeing slaves. So yeah, there's that.

There was another person on this forum who was much like you, his name was Poet if I recall correctly.

He thought his experiences in the Civil Rights era gave him the right to lecture everyone else about their inherent racism. Just like you.

Living through and experiencing those events are two separate things entirely.

You know NOTHING about this. Spare me your light and illiterate knowledge of Dr. King for if he was truly your role model and not a lie you're posting online in order to try dismissing your obvious racism, you would not have started this thread. My father was a minister and he met with Dr King when he visited our town.

And I'm sure your father had more integrity than you ever will. He's probably spinning so fast in his grave right now, he's already drilled a path halfway to China by now. I'm sure that he didn't advocate for the militant attitudes you have against white people.

Oh, and I would like you to prove how racist I am, please. I would like you to comb the forums and find examples of my racism.

Or you can quit lying about me.

 

[Asclepias]

That's not how racism works in 2020 and you know it.

Are you telling me that racism should work in only the ways YOU want it to?

Is that what I'm getting?

Looks to me like he is telling you that you have no clue about racism.

Hardly. And you assume you know everything about it because of your skin color?

How idiotic.

Turn black and live 5 years then tell us how much we don't know.

I lived 3 miles from the projects. 'Pauldoe' is was called. Every few months there seemed to be an incident there involving people firing off guns or getting into fights or doing drugs. This was a thing for a better part of 20 years. A great deal of the blacks in my city lived there.

I also went to school with a black girl that lived there. I distinctly remember one day fifteen years ago on the bus home her telling me how afraid she was, not of the cops, but of the violence and the drug dealing going on there, and she wanted to move away so badly, but her parents could not afford a mortgage.

I know all about it. I've gotten first hand testimony.

See, even as a teenager, I made efforts to educate myself about what racism is and isn't.

And it is clearly evident to me you know nothing about racism. Period. Full stop.

No you don't have first hand anything. I'm black and have lived through several iterations of white racism. You're telling me the white boy tale about things. But 15 years ago you did not talk to black adults about their concerns relative to job opportunities for youth that would reduce crime and provide alternatives to drugs sales. That's the discussion I was having 15 years ago white boy, so shut your fucking mouth.

You don't know what I did.

MLK was and is still my role model. A BLACK MAN. Because he was smart enough to understand the injustice of racism and employ a dialogue with those who practiced it. He was assassinated for it, and for that, everyone who followed him disregarded urges for nonviolent dialogue and tore America apart in 1968. Just like how these protests initially began.

I will speak my mind, and you will listen (or don't, you can freely leave this thread any time you want to, O oppressed one.)

I know exactly what you did and I showed it to you. Try not telling me about the 60's boy, I was alive to see it. King was not the only leader, King was not the first to start a dialogue about racism in the United States.

THIS, is the greatest anti racism speech in the history of this country.

What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?

View attachment 347323


In 1852, the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Association invited abolitionist, activist and statesman Frederick Douglass to speak at their July Fourth Independence Day Celebration in Rochester, N.Y.

He refused.

But he agreed to speak on July 5 instead.

Before an audience composed of Washington politicians, white abolitionists, and President Millard Fillmore, Douglass presented what still stands as one of history’s greatest example of speaking truth to power. Douglass’ unapologetic criticism of America’s hypocrisy still rings true to this very day.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?

Read the full text of Frederick Douglass' iconic speech.

www.theroot.com

You know NOTHING about this. Spare me your light and illiterate knowledge of Dr. King for if he was truly your role model and not a lie you're posting online in order to try dismissing your obvious racism, you would not have started this thread. My father was a minister and he met with Dr King when he visited our town.

The white man who murdered king, like the whites who were blowing up churches killing children are what tore America apart and in standard white racist fashion you ignore that.

Curious, he played a critical role in freeing the slaves:

"Abraham Lincoln… in his own peculiar, cautious, forbearing and hesitating way, slow, but we hope sure, has, while the loyal heart was near breaking with despair, proclaimed and declared: That on the First of January, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-three, All Persons Held as Slaves Within Any State or Any Designated Part of a State, The People Whereof Shall Then be in Rebellion Against the United States, Shall be Thenceforward and Forever Free."

Frederick Douglass, January 1, 1863

A white man murdered another white man for freeing slaves. So yeah, there's that.

There was another person on this forum who was much like you, his name was Poet if I recall correctly.

He thought his experiences in the Civil Rights era gave him the right to lecture everyone else about their inherent racism. Just like you.

Living through and experiencing those events are two separate things entirely.

You know NOTHING about this. Spare me your light and illiterate knowledge of Dr. King for if he was truly your role model and not a lie you're posting online in order to try dismissing your obvious racism, you would not have started this thread. My father was a minister and he met with Dr King when he visited our town.

And I'm sure your father had more integrity than you ever will. He's probably spinning so fast in his grave right now, he's already halfway to China by now.

Oh, and I would like you to prove how racist I am, please. I would like you to comb the forums and find examples of my racism.

Or you can quit lying about me.

Your examples of racist beliefs are right here in this thread. You have the gall to assume to tell Black people there is no racism in the US. Thats part of the "white man knows best" attitude all racists have.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Meaningless and cherrypicked stats and information.

I would pay them more heed if the ones citing them hadn't already made their biases clear earlier in the thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your examples of racist beliefs are right here in this thread.

You'll have to be more specific than that.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Temps first post " But never tell me America is racist. "

Temp after he confused himself:. " Of course, racism still exists in America "

Lol. You can't discern nuance, can you?

I think I hear what you're saying--that institutionally and ideologically, America is not racist. Our laws are fair. We do not discourage diversity. You acknowledge that some individuals are racist, though.

The only thing you're forgetting is that every single law, regulation and ideal actually is enacted by individuals. Otherwise, those laws would mean nothing. They have to be put into action by individuals. When those people are racist or even unconsciously believe that blacks are more dangerous, more suspect, than whites, it cannot be fair.

" I think I hear what you're saying--that institutionally and ideologically, America is not racist. "


I disagree even with that statement that Temp lacked the ability to articulate. There is systemic/institutional racism in the US. You cant have racism without the supporting ideology.

I'd really be interested if you would take a deeper dive into some of this. What is institutionally racist? Where has the justice system written it into policy? I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking for some specifics, because I don't know much about it. It is ridiculous for me to even try to defend BLM except on general principle, because I don't really understand what specifically they are asking for.

This is kind of starting in the middle and I'm not claiming to speak for Asclepias but this might give you some insight into the mindset of those during this era

"Convict Leasing and Chain Gangs

Bankrupt in the wake of the Civil War and faced with the difficult task of rebuilding and sustaining an infrastructure, Mississippi and other state governments turned to a familiar expedient to fund their penal institutions. In the late 1860s many southern prisons began leasing convicts to plantations and industries bereft of the cheap labor formerly supplied by slaves. As the majority of inmates were African American, this new form of compulsory labor helped to bridge the gap between the Black Codes and Jim Crow as a form of social control that embodied the common racial hierarchies in the South. Likewise, vagrancy laws criminalized the social mobility recently acquired by former slaves and produced a steady supply of bodies for the prison labor system.

Although prisoners in the convict lease system were used for a variety of arduous tasks from railroad construction to cutting timber, inmates in Mississippi worked primarily on large cotton plantations. Edward Richardson, a plantation owner who had lost his fortune in the Civil War, was perhaps the state’s greatest beneficiary of prison labor. The first to have a convict contract with the state, officials paid Richardson eighteen thousand dollars a year for “care” of the prisoners. With the added income from the profits of their labor, he eventually regained his wealth, setting an inspiring precedent for the southern business community.

After reaching its acme in the 1880s, the convict leasing era wound down as a consequence of accusations that too many affluent southerners had profited from the system and of moral indignation over the treatment of convicts. Inmates were forced to work dangerous jobs that free laborers refused to take and were subject to wanton physical punishment and severe deprivation, conditions that resulted in high death rates among the prison population. Outrage was further fueled by the fact that the state did not maintain separate facilities or mandate special treatment for children, and many were leased out under the system. Publicity regarding these deplorable realities led to a public outcry that forced Mississippi to abolish convict leasing in 1890, the first state to do so.

Individual counties, however, retained the right to use prison labor, and county-run chain gangs replaced convict labor in the early 1900s. Cuffed together at the ankle in small groups, prisoners were put to work expanding and repairing transportation routes as part of the Good Roads Movement, an urbanization effort aimed at increasing accessibility in the South. Though considered a troubling part of the past today, this use of convicts was generally championed in its time, and supporters, including the US Department of Agriculture, considered it an efficient and progressive way to both build roads and control criminals.

As with the convict lease system, most of the chain gang laborers were African Americans, who were thought to require a generous measure of discipline for proper “rehabilitation.” But convicts on county-run chain gangs often slept in cages and were subject to brutal corporal punishment and suffered from a host of debilitating ailments, including malnutrition, heatstroke, frostbite, contagious diseases, and shackle poisoning (infections caused by the constant rubbing of iron against the skin). Work songs helped to sustain morale and increase chances of survival, allowing prisoners to labor in a steady rhythm that could be slowed to protect the infirm or inefficient. As with the convict lease system, mounting public outrage resulted in bans on chain gangs nationwide by the mid-twentieth century.

Mississippi consolidated much of its convict labor force on Parchman Farm, a profitable and self-sustaining penal cotton plantation located on twenty thousand acres in the Yazoo Delta. Parchman was established in 1904 by Gov. James K. Vardaman, a proponent of prison reform who billed himself as a progressive and visionary but who regarded African Americans as mentally inferior and touted a paternalistic brand of racism that envisioned a pacified black population reconciled to subordinate social position.

• Written by Kathryn Radishofski, Columbia University "

Convict Leasing and Chain Gangs | Mississippi Encyclopedia

Notice how that is HISTORY and not common practice now.

You don't see the parallel?

I do. But that doesn't change the fact such inhuman practices don't exist in the present. If it did, I would understand your argument completely.

Do you believe that black people commit more crime than white people?

 

[Asclepias]

Your examples of racist beliefs are right here in this thread.

You'll have to be more specific than that.

The first post.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have the gall to assume to tell Black people there is no racism in the US.

I don't assume, I know. Namely because you aren't sleeping in substandard housing on a plantation somewhere in the deep south right now.



You know nothing about what your ancestors went through, and you have the gall to lecture me about mine? Intriguing.

Thats part of the "white man knows best" attitude all racists have.

And as to your claim that you know what's best for your people, I point you to this:

First I would banish all known racists to europe. Then I would give Black people reparations. If someone reacts they get their asses sent back to europe. Then we would work out a compromise with the natives. If they dont want to bargain then everyone takes their asses back to where their ancestors came from.

Again, YOU KNOW NOTHING. Cease your unnatural noises this instant.

You don't want any meaningful change to race relations, you wish to revel in the strife and division.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you believe that black people commit more crime than white people?

No. Whites do. Per numbers. But in proportion to their respective population, yes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your examples of racist beliefs are right here in this thread.

You'll have to be more specific than that.

The first post.

That's not specific. You aren't pointing to any specific point I made.

 

[IM2]

That's not how racism works in 2020 and you know it.

Are you telling me that racism should work in only the ways YOU want it to?

Is that what I'm getting?

Looks to me like he is telling you that you have no clue about racism.

Hardly. And you assume you know everything about it because of your skin color?

How idiotic.

Turn black and live 5 years then tell us how much we don't know.

I lived 3 miles from the projects. 'Pauldoe' is was called. Every few months there seemed to be an incident there involving people firing off guns or getting into fights or doing drugs. This was a thing for a better part of 20 years. A great deal of the blacks in my city lived there.

I also went to school with a black girl that lived there. I distinctly remember one day fifteen years ago on the bus home her telling me how afraid she was, not of the cops, but of the violence and the drug dealing going on there, and she wanted to move away so badly, but her parents could not afford a mortgage.

I know all about it. I've gotten first hand testimony.

See, even as a teenager, I made efforts to educate myself about what racism is and isn't.

And it is clearly evident to me you know nothing about racism. Period. Full stop.

No you don't have first hand anything. I'm black and have lived through several iterations of white racism. You're telling me the white boy tale about things. But 15 years ago you did not talk to black adults about their concerns relative to job opportunities for youth that would reduce crime and provide alternatives to drugs sales. That's the discussion I was having 15 years ago white boy, so shut your fucking mouth.

You don't know what I did.

MLK was and is still my role model. A BLACK MAN. Because he was smart enough to understand the injustice of racism and employ a dialogue with those who practiced it. He was assassinated for it, and for that, everyone who followed him disregarded urges for nonviolent dialogue and tore America apart in 1968. Just like how these protests initially began.

I will speak my mind, and you will listen (or don't, you can freely leave this thread any time you want to, O oppressed one.)

I know exactly what you did and I showed it to you. Try not telling me about the 60's boy, I was alive to see it. King was not the only leader, King was not the first to start a dialogue about racism in the United States.

THIS, is the greatest anti racism speech in the history of this country.

What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?

View attachment 347323


In 1852, the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Association invited abolitionist, activist and statesman Frederick Douglass to speak at their July Fourth Independence Day Celebration in Rochester, N.Y.

He refused.

But he agreed to speak on July 5 instead.

Before an audience composed of Washington politicians, white abolitionists, and President Millard Fillmore, Douglass presented what still stands as one of history’s greatest example of speaking truth to power. Douglass’ unapologetic criticism of America’s hypocrisy still rings true to this very day.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?

Read the full text of Frederick Douglass' iconic speech.

www.theroot.com

You know NOTHING about this. Spare me your light and illiterate knowledge of Dr. King for if he was truly your role model and not a lie you're posting online in order to try dismissing your obvious racism, you would not have started this thread. My father was a minister and he met with Dr King when he visited our town.

The white man who murdered king, like the whites who were blowing up churches killing children are what tore America apart and in standard white racist fashion you ignore that.

Curious, he played a critical role in freeing the slaves:

"Abraham Lincoln… in his own peculiar, cautious, forbearing and hesitating way, slow, but we hope sure, has, while the loyal heart was near breaking with despair, proclaimed and declared: That on the First of January, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-three, All Persons Held as Slaves Within Any State or Any Designated Part of a State, The People Whereof Shall Then be in Rebellion Against the United States, Shall be Thenceforward and Forever Free."

Frederick Douglass, January 1, 1863

A white man murdered another white man for freeing slaves. So yeah, there's that.

There was another person on this forum who was much like you, his name was Poet if I recall correctly.

He thought his experiences in the Civil Rights era gave him the right to lecture everyone else about their inherent racism. Just like you.

Living through and experiencing those events are two separate things entirely.

You know NOTHING about this. Spare me your light and illiterate knowledge of Dr. King for if he was truly your role model and not a lie you're posting online in order to try dismissing your obvious racism, you would not have started this thread. My father was a minister and he met with Dr King when he visited our town.

And I'm sure your father had more integrity than you ever will. He's probably spinning so fast in his grave right now, he's already drilled a path halfway to China by now. I'm sure that he didn't advocate for the militant attitudes you have against white people.

Oh, and I would like you to prove how racist I am, please. I would like you to comb the forums and find examples of my racism.

Or you can quit lying about me.

My dad was proud of the work I did. You wouldn't like him because he was not a sellout and if you can't take what I am saying, you damn sure would not want to hear what a black man born in 1922 would have to say about what whites have done. I am telling you about a man who took a bullet for this country in France, then was forced to sit on the back of the bus here. You couldn't handle what he would say to you young boy.

You imagine blacks who see things as you do. My dad fought against white racism in my home town. You would call him militant. Again I do not have a problem with all white people. So unless YOU are telling me all whites are racists, then you are wrong.

This thread is evidence of your racism.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My dad fought against white racism in my home town. You would call him militant.

Uh, not really, if he was willing to meet with King, who advocated for nonviolent solutions to racism.