So What Happened To Blacks After Slavery?

[IM2]

The answer to that is rather obvious and it has little to do with "racism"! It's about economic opportunity. Before World War I broke out blacks weren't needed to fill factory jobs in the north. The reason The Great Migration begins in 1920 instead of 1900 or 1890 is that demand for labor didn't exist in the north earlier than that! You don't have a counter argument to that though...do you?

So when is it that you're going to "school" me, IM2? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it!

The lack of economic opportunity in the south was due to racism. You have been shown that. I am not going to keep repeating myself with you as you try what you did when you argued about Obama repeating the same silly shit over and over. Racism is why blacks went north. It was always the reason blacks went north beginning during slavery.

 

[Correll]

The tax-sale law that allowed someone to steal Ms. Jenkins’s land remains on the books in South Carolina and many other states, and continues to be used to extract wealth from poor and vulnerable communities across America. Tax buying thrived in the wake of the 2008 housing foreclosure crisis, as the number of tax-delinquent homes mushroomed, and today in gentrifying cities, where rising property assessments function as a self-fulfilling prophecy, predicting the changes local officials hope to bring and forcing low-income people out.

Many local governments have resisted calls to protect homeowners from predatory tax buying and have instead sought to increase profitability for investors; other cities have taken aggressive steps to foreclose on tax-delinquent properties. Between 2011 and 2015, Detroit initiated tax foreclosures on one out of every four properties in the city, an epidemic of tax delinquency caused, in large measure, by the illegal over-assessment of lower-valued properties. Then and now, the victims of discriminatory overtaxation and predatory tax buying are disproportionately black.

These continuing practices, more than the government’s broken promise of 40 acres and a mule 150 years ago, explain why black families today have 10 cents to every dollar held by white households and why that gap continues to widen. It’s why the history of black land-taking should be at the center of the reparations debate, not only because the scale of the loss was so great but also because it forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that American prosperity has not bypassed black Americans so much as it has come directly at their expense. It’s no coincidence that African-American communities on the Sea Islands suffered their heaviest land losses in the 1970s and 1980s, the same decades when the area experienced its most rapid economic growth.

Indeed, slavery and Jim Crow not only excluded generations of black Americans from benefits and opportunities enjoyed by white Americans; it also exposed them to the most predatory features of our capitalist system. It turned black people’s earnest attempts to build wealth the American way — through property ownership — into an opportunity for others to profit at their expense.
If we ever hope to repair the damage racism has done to America, and address the dividends it continues to pay to white Americans, we cannot simply open to black Americans previously closed doors of opportunity or merely provide some form of compensation for past injustices. We must also work to dismantle the laws and policies that sanction the continued extraction of property and resources from black communities.

Andrew W. Kahrl (@andrewkahrl) is an associate professor of history and African-American studies at the University of Virginia.

Opinion | Black People’s Land Was Stolen (Published 2019)

Any discussion of reparations must include how this happened, who did it, and the laws, policies and practices that allowed it.

www.nytimes.com

Whites like Oldstyle and the standard suspects want to try dismissing things that do not validate their view of race relations in America. No one denies what they present, but it is only half, and that's being nice, of the story. The part I am presenting is the part they refuse to submit to the open. Those who do are ostracized. If someone white presents this, they are called anti white racists. or self hating whites who kiss black ass. If a black person or anyone of color presents this information they are called, whiners losers who are blaming whites for their failures, victims, or racists by the white racists who want to keep this part of history hidden.

The story they want to believe is impossible. Blacks just were not given all the things they claim and just blew it. We as blacks know this. Blacks did not just run off southern land they owned in order to come north. The government did not spend 5 trillion dollars on blacks for welfare but blacks just couldn't cut it. Blacks have been legally freed from slavery by decree but not equality was not afforded to blacks by operation of governments at every level. Blacks have not EVER had the exact same rights as white in this country ever. Words on paper have never mattered to whites except among themselves and even then you have whites who don't honor laws and agreements with one another. So the tall tale whereby blacks have been free for 150 years but somehow have never been able to make it is a false narrative. So is the notion of now that racism was ended 55 years ago that we have complete equal opportunity with no obstacles . And to say everyone had it tough is a lie as well.

The information I posted was an article written by a professor of African American studies. at the University of Virginia. He is an expert, not some white dude with an undergrad degree in history trying to argue in order to support his racist opinion about blacks. Things did not happen as Oldstyle claims. Blacks did not get reparations for damages caused after slavery and those damages are numerous and are part of the reason blacks suffer right now. So the claim being made of what whites did not own is irrelevant and meritless, because the consistent excuses made to deny the damage continuing racism has done is exactly the same thing every other generation of whites have done in America.

Why are you always lying?

First there is the tale from our fiction writer IM2 and then there is the TRUTH.

How Long You Get to Redeem Your Property After a South Carolina Tax Sale
Under South Carolina law, you get a specific amount of time (called a "redemption period") to pay off the tax debt (called "redeeming" the property) after the sale before the winning bidder from the auction gets title to your home.

In South Carolina, you get twelve months after the sale date to redeem. (S.C. Code Ann. § 12-51-90). If you don’t redeem within this time frame, then the high bidder gets a deed (a tax deed) to your home.

Notice Before You Lose Title to Your Home
Between 45 days and 20 days before the end of the redemption period, the tax collector must mail you a notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, which lets you know that the end of your redemption period is approaching. (S.C. Code Ann. § 12-51-120).

How Much Will It Cost to Redeem My South Carolina Home After a Tax Sale?
To redeem your home, you must pay the tax collector the delinquent taxes, penalties, costs, assessments, and interest due to the bidder up to 12%. (S.C. Code Ann. § 12-51-90).


How Much Interest You’ll Have to Pay
The amount of interest you’ll have to pay depends on when you redeem the home.

• If you redeem during the first three months of the redemption period, you must pay 3% of the bid amount.
• If you redeem during month four, five, or six of the redemption period, you’ll have to pay 6% of the bid amount.
• If you redeem in month seven, eight, or nine, then you must pay 9% of the bid amount.
• If you redeem during the final three months of your redemption period, you must pay 12% of the bid amount. (S.C. Code Ann. § 12-51-90).

What Happens If I Don't Pay Property Taxes in South Carolina?

If you're delinquent on your property taxes in South Carolina, you may eventually lose your home. Learn the consequences of not paying property tax in SC.

www.nolo.com

You send this to Dr. Andrew W. Kahrl (@andrewkahrl) is an associate professor of history and African-American studies at the University of Virginia. Tell him what he has researched is a lie. Understand? In short, you are posting policies as if they are followed equally for everyone and we know as black people that does not happen.

You LIE LIKE A RUG!

The population of Detroit Michigan was 952,262 in the year 2000. In 2016 the population of Detroit is 672,795 or a loss of 279,467 citizens. What happens to the value of a property when such a drop in population occurs?

You do love making a fool of yourself, don't you?

I showed you were lying about the procedure to sell a property in South Carolina when taxes are not paid, here is the procedure in Michigan.

• Real property tax delinquency entails a three-year forfeiture and foreclosure process in Michigan. Parcels are forfeited to the county treasurers when the real property taxes are in the second year of delinquency. Real property taxes which remain unpaid as of March 31 in the third year of delinquency are foreclosed upon by the Foreclosing Governmental Unit (FGU). The FGU is responsible for inspecting forfeited property, providing due process notifications and subsequent disposition of the tax foreclosed property. Click on the following links for more detailed information regarding the real property tax forfeiture and foreclosure process.

Property Tax Forfeiture and Foreclosure

Property Tax Forfeiture and Foreclosure

www.michigan.gov

Again you go talk to the professor who wrote the article. He documented what occurred and that's the way it happened. Your posting of what is supposed to happen doesn't cover for the FACT that what is supposed to happen doesn't always happen for black people.

You have shown me how the procedure is supposed to happen. This is a common mistake whites like you do when trying to argue against the facts blacks show you relative to racism.
....

Too much racism for me to continue. Fuck you IM2.


I regularly get called on it by libs for calling groups of white people, "white", in a not attacking while,


fucking IM2, says shit like "white like you" and is treated like....not the racist asshole he is, by white libs.


You are all so fucking stupid, it is beyond belief.

 

[Correll]

Let me guess...NOW you're going to go study up on The Great Migration in an attempt to poke holes in my points? You'd probably look like less of an ASS if you did that before you post silly stuff like this! Just saying...

I don't need to study up on the great migration. You need to go back to that college you attended and retake those history courses yo u say that you graduated in.

Now you got your ass kicked but what is going to happen is that the other white numbskulls will gang up on me and you will think that means you proved something. And that will allow yo to puff up and keep talking crazy and you will be consistently torn apart until you quit.

You obviously didn't understand it...so YES...you needed to study up on The Great Migration! There WAS a reason why so many black farmers left the South and moved north but it wasn't because they were driven off their lands. The truth is...they were induced to leave by the promise of a better life in the north!
It's laughable that you think you're tearing anyone apart! You still haven't refuted my point. I don't think you have the intellectual "chops" to carry on a real debate. You cut and paste. Claim it as your own and then whine about racism if anyone questions what you posted!

No fool I don't. You are the asshole arguing about Obama graders without evidence. I know all about the great migration as I am black. ....

Wow. Claiming superior historical knowledge because of Race.

Incredible.

And he insists that he is not racist.


It is hilarious that he is soo stupid, that he can say such stupid shit, and not realize how fucking stupid it makes him look.

I'm amused by IM2! In his eyes everyone else has to be a racist...based on their pigmentation...while in his eyes he is a genius...based on his pigmentation!
What's sad is that if you take away his cut and paste posts...he's one of the more simple minded people on this board. I say that because truly intelligent people don't need to cut and paste OTHER people's ideas in order to appear intelligent!

The lack of self awareness of liberals, never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Correll]

Let me guess...NOW you're going to go study up on The Great Migration in an attempt to poke holes in my points? You'd probably look like less of an ASS if you did that before you post silly stuff like this! Just saying...

I don't need to study up on the great migration. You need to go back to that college you attended and retake those history courses yo u say that you graduated in.

Now you got your ass kicked but what is going to happen is that the other white numbskulls will gang up on me and you will think that means you proved something. And that will allow yo to puff up and keep talking crazy and you will be consistently torn apart until you quit.

You obviously didn't understand it...so YES...you needed to study up on The Great Migration! There WAS a reason why so many black farmers left the South and moved north but it wasn't because they were driven off their lands. The truth is...they were induced to leave by the promise of a better life in the north!
It's laughable that you think you're tearing anyone apart! You still haven't refuted my point. I don't think you have the intellectual "chops" to carry on a real debate. You cut and paste. Claim it as your own and then whine about racism if anyone questions what you posted!

No fool I don't. You are the asshole arguing about Obama graders without evidence. I know all about the great migration as I am black. ....

Wow. Claiming superior historical knowledge because of Race.

Incredible.

And he insists that he is not racist.


It is hilarious that he is soo stupid, that he can say such stupid shit, and not realize how fucking stupid it makes him look.

I'm amused by IM2! In his eyes everyone else has to be a racist...based on their pigmentation...while in his eyes he is a genius...based on his pigmentation!
What's sad is that if you take away his cut and paste posts...he's one of the more simple minded people on this board. I say that because truly intelligent people don't need to cut and paste OTHER people's ideas in order to appear intelligent!

lol! Lol! LOL! LOL!

Everybody else is not a racist. But you are. So is Correll, westvall, and the other standard suspects who do all the whining about how blacks are racists.
....

We were discussing how YOU are stupid and racist, im2, not "blacks" as a race.


And you dismissing our points as "whining" is just you being a troll. Fuck you.

 

[IM2]

Racism in America Today Is Alive and Well — And These Stats Prove It


These statistics reveal disparate dimensions of racism as it exists in the United States today and are a stark reminder of how far the country needs to go in addressing the problem.

1. Hate crimes are motivated by race more than anything else.
Nearly half of all hate crimes committed in America have to do with race. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 47% of hate crimes are racially motivated. Second place, a tie between religion and sexual orientation, doesn't even come close, accounting for only 19% of hate crimes, respectively.

2. Black men are far more likely to be shot and killed by police than white men.
"Unarmed black men are seven times more likely than whites to die by police gunfire," the Washington Post reports on police brutality targeted at black Americans. The report estimated that an unarmed black man was shot and killed by police every nine days in 2015.

While the targeting of black men by law enforcement has received considerable media attention in recent years, black women, who are often underrepresented, have faced similar fates of maltreatment.

"Although Black women are routinely killed, raped and beaten by the police, their experiences are rarely foregrounded in popular understandings of police brutality," Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, co-author and executive director of the African American Policy Forum, said in an AAPF report on law enforcement's treatment of black women.

Racism in America Today Is Alive and Well — And These Stats Prove It

America is far from having quelled its racism problem. Whether it's treatment by police or susceptibility to poverty, one's skin color can determine a whole range of variables in life. Particularly, blacks in America face a disproportionate number…

www.mic.com

 

[Correll]

Racism in America Today Is Alive and Well — And These Stats Prove It


These statistics reveal disparate dimensions of racism as it exists in the United States today and are a stark reminder of how far the country needs to go in addressing the problem.

1. Hate crimes are motivated by race more than anything else.
Nearly half of all hate crimes committed in America have to do with race. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 47% of hate crimes are racially motivated. Second place, a tie between religion and sexual orientation, doesn't even come close, accounting for only 19% of hate crimes, respectively.

2. Black men are far more likely to be shot and killed by police than white men.
"Unarmed black men are seven times more likely than whites to die by police gunfire," the Washington Post reports on police brutality targeted at black Americans. The report estimated that an unarmed black man was shot and killed by police every nine days in 2015.

While the targeting of black men by law enforcement has received considerable media attention in recent years, black women, who are often underrepresented, have faced similar fates of maltreatment.

"Although Black women are routinely killed, raped and beaten by the police, their experiences are rarely foregrounded in popular understandings of police brutality," Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, co-author and executive director of the African American Policy Forum, said in an AAPF report on law enforcement's treatment of black women.

Racism in America Today Is Alive and Well — And These Stats Prove It

America is far from having quelled its racism problem. Whether it's treatment by police or susceptibility to poverty, one's skin color can determine a whole range of variables in life. Particularly, blacks in America face a disproportionate number…

www.mic.com

View attachment 328255​

1. "hate crimes" stats are completely subjective and unreliable.

2. Blacks are shot and killed by cops at a higher rate? YOu don't get to just assume racism as a cause, moron.

 

[Oldestyle]

The answer to that is rather obvious and it has little to do with "racism"! It's about economic opportunity. Before World War I broke out blacks weren't needed to fill factory jobs in the north. The reason The Great Migration begins in 1920 instead of 1900 or 1890 is that demand for labor didn't exist in the north earlier than that! You don't have a counter argument to that though...do you?

So when is it that you're going to "school" me, IM2? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it!

The lack of economic opportunity in the south was due to racism. You have been shown that. I am not going to keep repeating myself with you as you try what you did when you argued about Obama repeating the same silly shit over and over. Racism is why blacks went north. It was always the reason blacks went north beginning during slavery.

Once again...WHY DID THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGIN IN 1920 THEN!!! WHY DIDN'T IT START IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR?
It's a simple question, IM2! Why did it take fifty years if the primary reason for the migration was racism?

 

[Correll]

The answer to that is rather obvious and it has little to do with "racism"! It's about economic opportunity. Before World War I broke out blacks weren't needed to fill factory jobs in the north. The reason The Great Migration begins in 1920 instead of 1900 or 1890 is that demand for labor didn't exist in the north earlier than that! You don't have a counter argument to that though...do you?

So when is it that you're going to "school" me, IM2? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it!

The lack of economic opportunity in the south was due to racism. You have been shown that. I am not going to keep repeating myself with you as you try what you did when you argued about Obama repeating the same silly shit over and over. Racism is why blacks went north. It was always the reason blacks went north beginning during slavery.

Once again...WHY DID THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGIN IN 1920 THEN!!! WHY DIDN'T IT START IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR?
It's a simple question, IM2! Why did it take fifty years if the primary reason for the migration was racism?

Lefties don't like it, when you insist they actually answer a question.

 

[Oldestyle]

The answer to that is rather obvious and it has little to do with "racism"! It's about economic opportunity. Before World War I broke out blacks weren't needed to fill factory jobs in the north. The reason The Great Migration begins in 1920 instead of 1900 or 1890 is that demand for labor didn't exist in the north earlier than that! You don't have a counter argument to that though...do you?

So when is it that you're going to "school" me, IM2? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it!

The lack of economic opportunity in the south was due to racism. You have been shown that. I am not going to keep repeating myself with you as you try what you did when you argued about Obama repeating the same silly shit over and over. Racism is why blacks went north. It was always the reason blacks went north beginning during slavery.

Once again...WHY DID THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGIN IN 1920 THEN!!! WHY DIDN'T IT START IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR?
It's a simple question, IM2! Why did it take fifty years if the primary reason for the migration was racism?

Lefties don't like it, when you insist they actually answer a question.

IM2 doesn't have an answer to that question and he knows it. "RACISM" is his answer to all things even when it's obviously NOT the answer!

 

[IM2]

Don’t Let the Loud Bigots Distract You. America’s Real Problem With Race Cuts Far Deeper

In a recent viral video, an unidentified white woman in line at a grocery store in Oregon, dressed in a floral romper and black knee-high boots, overheard a black woman’s phone conversation. She believed this black woman was trying to sell food stamps illegally. The exchange became heated, and the white woman was told, in no uncertain terms, to mind her business. “Oh, it is my business,” the white woman responded. “Because I pay my taxes.” She then said something that, quite frankly, stunned me: “We’re going to build this wall.”

This was not an oddly timed statement about her views on immigration; it was a declaration of her whiteness and, by extension, her view of who belonged in this country. She might as well have called the black woman a ******. She didn’t. She called the police instead.

But no, this wasn’t a video of police violence or another example of some white person hurling racial epithets. In so many ways, the argument between these two women captured the soft bigotry that has, from beneath the surface, enabled American public policy and individual behavior for decades. This woman, years after the departure of what Newt Gingrich called in 2011 “the most successful food-stamp President in American history,” saw a member of Mitt Romney’s “47% … who are dependent upon government … who pay no income tax.” This white woman witnessed Ronald Reagan’s welfare queen. Now she had not just a new phrase — build this wall — but also the confidence that the President would support her in her indignation, and that the problem would soon be resolved. America would be great again.

It is this type of outburst, though — blaring and easy to denounce — that provides many Americans with a familiar experience: the moral comfort of having someone else to blame for our nation’s racial struggles. If only we, the non-racists, could kick her out, or lock her up.

It is relatively easy to blame our current struggles on these loud racists who have been emboldened by the election of Donald Trump. But this is typical American racial melodrama. We need easily marked villains and happy endings. Yet this recital of condemnation all too often hides the messiness of our own moral lives: that we aren’t absolved of our complicity simply by the politicians we support, especially since the American public so rarely pushes for policies that enact our supposed commitment to racial equality.

Our narrow focus on explicit racists misses a development that explains our current moment: that much of our struggle with race today is bound up in the false innocence of white suburban bliss and the manic effort to protect it, no matter the costs. In the late 1960s and early ’70s, for example, millions of white homeowners in the nation’s suburbs — for the most part, racially segregated communities subsidized by state policies — rejected efforts to desegregate schools through busing and vehemently defended the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. These were not people shouting slurs at the top of their lungs (although some did). They were courageous defenders of their quality of life — segregated life, that is. These were the people of the so-called “silent majority,” who insisted on free-market meritocracy and embraced a color-blind ideology to maintain their racially exclusive enclaves. Their antibusing crusades, taxpayer revolts and insistence on neighborhood schools cut across party lines and helped shape national politics. Democrats and Republicans appealed to the interests of these voters, and many turned their backs on the agenda of the civil rights movement. These Americans, it was argued, were the true victims.

In his important 2006 book, The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South, historian Matthew D. Lassiter stated clearly the effect of this moment from the late 1960s and early ’70s:

The suburban politics of middle-class warfare charted a middle course between the open racism of the extreme right and the egalitarian agenda of the civil rights movement, based in an ethos of color-blind individualism that accepted the principle of equal opportunity under the law but refused to countenance affirmative-action policies designed to overcome metropolitan structures of inequality.

Suburban white America voiced its belief in racial equality, but relentlessly held on to white class privilege and all the policies and structures that made it possible. Many social scientists would call this the “new racism” or “laissez-faire racism,” in which white Americans failed to actively address racial inequality and, in doing so, maintained the racial status quo. Historians, like Lassiter, would identify it as a key feature of modern American conservatism.

Don’t Let the Loud Bigots Distract You

This hateful moment offers an opportunity for Americans to finally change our racist ways

time.com

Dr. Carol Anderson summed it up like this:

“The second key maneuver, which flowed naturally from the first, was to redefine racism itself. Confronted with civil rights headlines depicting unflattering portrayals of KKK rallies and jackbooted sheriffs, white authority transformed those damning images of white supremacy into the sole definition of racism. This simple but wickedly brilliant conceptual and linguistic shift served multiple purposes. First and foremost, it was conscience soothing. The whittling down of racism to sheet-wearing goons allowed a cloud of racial innocence to cover many whites who, although 'resentful of black progress' and determined to ensure that racial inequality remained untouched, could see and project themselves as the 'kind of upstanding white citizen(s)' who were 'positively outraged at the tactics of the Ku Klux Klan". The focus on the Klan also helped to designate racism as an individual aberration rather than something systemic, institutional and pervasive.” ​

― Carol Anderson, White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide

 

[IM2]

The answer to that is rather obvious and it has little to do with "racism"! It's about economic opportunity. Before World War I broke out blacks weren't needed to fill factory jobs in the north. The reason The Great Migration begins in 1920 instead of 1900 or 1890 is that demand for labor didn't exist in the north earlier than that! You don't have a counter argument to that though...do you?

So when is it that you're going to "school" me, IM2? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it!

The lack of economic opportunity in the south was due to racism. You have been shown that. I am not going to keep repeating myself with you as you try what you did when you argued about Obama repeating the same silly shit over and over. Racism is why blacks went north. It was always the reason blacks went north beginning during slavery.

Once again...WHY DID THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGIN IN 1920 THEN!!! WHY DIDN'T IT START IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR?
It's a simple question, IM2! Why did it take fifty years if the primary reason for the migration was racism?

Again, the great migration was due to racism. That's a fact. Blacks had been escaping to the north and into Canada from the beginning of slavery. So there was no 50 year wait and there is no question to answer.

 

[Correll]

Don’t Let the Loud Bigots Distract You. America’s Real Problem With Race Cuts Far Deeper

In a recent viral video, an unidentified white woman in line at a grocery store in Oregon, dressed in a floral romper and black knee-high boots, overheard a black woman’s phone conversation. She believed this black woman was trying to sell food stamps illegally. The exchange became heated, and the white woman was told, in no uncertain terms, to mind her business. “Oh, it is my business,” the white woman responded. “Because I pay my taxes.” She then said something that, quite frankly, stunned me: “We’re going to build this wall.”

This was not an oddly timed statement about her views on immigration; it was a declaration of her whiteness and, by extension, her view of who belonged in this country. She might as well have called the black woman a ******. She didn’t. She called the police instead.

But no, this wasn’t a video of police violence or another example of some white person hurling racial epithets. In so many ways, the argument between these two women captured the soft bigotry that has, from beneath the surface, enabled American public policy and individual behavior for decades. This woman, years after the departure of what Newt Gingrich called in 2011 “the most successful food-stamp President in American history,” saw a member of Mitt Romney’s “47% … who are dependent upon government … who pay no income tax.” This white woman witnessed Ronald Reagan’s welfare queen. Now she had not just a new phrase — build this wall — but also the confidence that the President would support her in her indignation, and that the problem would soon be resolved. America would be great again.

It is this type of outburst, though — blaring and easy to denounce — that provides many Americans with a familiar experience: the moral comfort of having someone else to blame for our nation’s racial struggles. If only we, the non-racists, could kick her out, or lock her up.

It is relatively easy to blame our current struggles on these loud racists who have been emboldened by the election of Donald Trump. But this is typical American racial melodrama. We need easily marked villains and happy endings. Yet this recital of condemnation all too often hides the messiness of our own moral lives: that we aren’t absolved of our complicity simply by the politicians we support, especially since the American public so rarely pushes for policies that enact our supposed commitment to racial equality.

Our narrow focus on explicit racists misses a development that explains our current moment: that much of our struggle with race today is bound up in the false innocence of white suburban bliss and the manic effort to protect it, no matter the costs. In the late 1960s and early ’70s, for example, millions of white homeowners in the nation’s suburbs — for the most part, racially segregated communities subsidized by state policies — rejected efforts to desegregate schools through busing and vehemently defended the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. These were not people shouting slurs at the top of their lungs (although some did). They were courageous defenders of their quality of life — segregated life, that is. These were the people of the so-called “silent majority,” who insisted on free-market meritocracy and embraced a color-blind ideology to maintain their racially exclusive enclaves. Their antibusing crusades, taxpayer revolts and insistence on neighborhood schools cut across party lines and helped shape national politics. Democrats and Republicans appealed to the interests of these voters, and many turned their backs on the agenda of the civil rights movement. These Americans, it was argued, were the true victims.

In his important 2006 book, The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South, historian Matthew D. Lassiter stated clearly the effect of this moment from the late 1960s and early ’70s:

The suburban politics of middle-class warfare charted a middle course between the open racism of the extreme right and the egalitarian agenda of the civil rights movement, based in an ethos of color-blind individualism that accepted the principle of equal opportunity under the law but refused to countenance affirmative-action policies designed to overcome metropolitan structures of inequality.

Suburban white America voiced its belief in racial equality, but relentlessly held on to white class privilege and all the policies and structures that made it possible. Many social scientists would call this the “new racism” or “laissez-faire racism,” in which white Americans failed to actively address racial inequality and, in doing so, maintained the racial status quo. Historians, like Lassiter, would identify it as a key feature of modern American conservatism.

Don’t Let the Loud Bigots Distract You

This hateful moment offers an opportunity for Americans to finally change our racist ways

time.com

Dr. Carol Anderson summed it up like this:

“The second key maneuver, which flowed naturally from the first, was to redefine racism itself. Confronted with civil rights headlines depicting unflattering portrayals of KKK rallies and jackbooted sheriffs, white authority transformed those damning images of white supremacy into the sole definition of racism. This simple but wickedly brilliant conceptual and linguistic shift served multiple purposes. First and foremost, it was conscience soothing. The whittling down of racism to sheet-wearing goons allowed a cloud of racial innocence to cover many whites who, although 'resentful of black progress' and determined to ensure that racial inequality remained untouched, could see and project themselves as the 'kind of upstanding white citizen(s)' who were 'positively outraged at the tactics of the Ku Klux Klan". The focus on the Klan also helped to designate racism as an individual aberration rather than something systemic, institutional and pervasive.” ​

― Carol Anderson, White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide

So, was the woman selling food stamps?


oH, and if we can hear your conversation on the phone it is not private.

 

[Oldestyle]

The answer to that is rather obvious and it has little to do with "racism"! It's about economic opportunity. Before World War I broke out blacks weren't needed to fill factory jobs in the north. The reason The Great Migration begins in 1920 instead of 1900 or 1890 is that demand for labor didn't exist in the north earlier than that! You don't have a counter argument to that though...do you?

So when is it that you're going to "school" me, IM2? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it!

The lack of economic opportunity in the south was due to racism. You have been shown that. I am not going to keep repeating myself with you as you try what you did when you argued about Obama repeating the same silly shit over and over. Racism is why blacks went north. It was always the reason blacks went north beginning during slavery.

Once again...WHY DID THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGIN IN 1920 THEN!!! WHY DIDN'T IT START IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR?
It's a simple question, IM2! Why did it take fifty years if the primary reason for the migration was racism?

Again, the great migration was due to racism. That's a fact. Blacks had been escaping to the north and into Canada from the beginning of slavery. So there was no 50 year wait and there is no question to answer.

Then kindly explain why The Great Migration years are from the 1920's to the 1970's?

 

[Oldestyle]

Simply repeating over and over again that it was racism and that's a fact isn't an argument, IM2! Your premise is fatally flawed and you have no rebuttal to criticism of it!

 

[IM2]

The answer to that is rather obvious and it has little to do with "racism"! It's about economic opportunity. Before World War I broke out blacks weren't needed to fill factory jobs in the north. The reason The Great Migration begins in 1920 instead of 1900 or 1890 is that demand for labor didn't exist in the north earlier than that! You don't have a counter argument to that though...do you?

So when is it that you're going to "school" me, IM2? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it!

The lack of economic opportunity in the south was due to racism. You have been shown that. I am not going to keep repeating myself with you as you try what you did when you argued about Obama repeating the same silly shit over and over. Racism is why blacks went north. It was always the reason blacks went north beginning during slavery.

Once again...WHY DID THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGIN IN 1920 THEN!!! WHY DIDN'T IT START IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR?
It's a simple question, IM2! Why did it take fifty years if the primary reason for the migration was racism?

Again, the great migration was due to racism. That's a fact. Blacks had been escaping to the north and into Canada from the beginning of slavery. So there was no 50 year wait and there is no question to answer.

Then kindly explain why The Great Migration years are from the 1920's to the 1970's?

There is no need to explain this. It is called what it is called. Your opinion of why it is called that is just simply incorrect. You were shown that the violence, beatings, killings, terrorism, and economic exploitation due to the racism in the south was what precipitated the migration.

 

[katsteve2012]

The answer to that is rather obvious and it has little to do with "racism"! It's about economic opportunity. Before World War I broke out blacks weren't needed to fill factory jobs in the north. The reason The Great Migration begins in 1920 instead of 1900 or 1890 is that demand for labor didn't exist in the north earlier than that! You don't have a counter argument to that though...do you?

So when is it that you're going to "school" me, IM2? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing it!

The lack of economic opportunity in the south was due to racism. You have been shown that. I am not going to keep repeating myself with you as you try what you did when you argued about Obama repeating the same silly shit over and over. Racism is why blacks went north. It was always the reason blacks went north beginning during slavery.

Once again...WHY DID THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGIN IN 1920 THEN!!! WHY DIDN'T IT START IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR?
It's a simple question, IM2! Why did it take fifty years if the primary reason for the migration was racism?

Again, the great migration was due to racism. That's a fact. Blacks had been escaping to the north and into Canada from the beginning of slavery. So there was no 50 year wait and there is no question to answer.

Then kindly explain why The Great Migration years are from the 1920's to the 1970's?

My grandfather left Arkansas and headed to Detroit in the early 1930's.
Everything that I've ever read and was told by elders who left the south, was a combination of factors. The need for industrial workers outside of the south was part of it, but it was also related to the denial of opportunity because of southern Jim Crow laws.

Great Migration: Definition, Causes & Impact | HISTORY

The Great Migration was the movement of more than 6 million Black Americans from the South to the cities of the North, Midwest and West from about 1916 to 1970.

www.history.com

 

[IM2]

Simply repeating over and over again that it was racism and that's a fact isn't an argument, IM2! Your premise is fatally flawed and you have no rebuttal to criticism of it!

LMAO! It's repeating the facts. My "premise" 100 percent accurate. Documented history shows this. You are just calling yourself criticizing it because you want to put on a show for the other racists.

 

[IM2]

My fathers family were sharecroppers in NE Louisiana. They got cheated every year because they were black. They had no protection from the law. They heard blacks could get a fair shake in the north and that whites were not as racist. This is what my father told me, as well as my grandmother, her brother my great uncle, and my mothers brother who moved to Cleveland Ohio from Harlan Kentucky.

You seem to think that blacks just sat in the south until 1920 then all of a sudden everybody went north ONLY because of the jobs. Not so.

 

[IM2]

Since Oldstyle seems to think that blacks telling him what they were specifically told by other blacks as to why things happened cannot be why they happened and only his white version can be the reason, let's use an explanation made by whites as to why the great migration happened.

Causes of the Great Migration

Between 1910 and 1970, an estimated six million African-Americans migrated from southern states to northern and Midwestern cities.

"Attempting to escape racism and Jim Crow laws of the South, African-Americans found work in northern and western steel mills, tanneries, and railroad companies."

Causes of the Great Migration: Searching for the Promised Land

Learn about the various causes of the Great Migration, when millions of African Americans migrated from southern states to northern and Midwestern cities.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Canon Shooter]

This thread is specifically about what the government of these united states did to blacks after the years of slavery up until right now.

The republicans here want to take credit for ending slavery while simultaneously telling us that they should not be held responsible for what their ancestors did before they were born. In standard republican fashion everybody else must take responsibility but them. However in the 150 or so years after slavery things have happened that most of these guys don't want to discuss. It is time to take a look at what has happened.

Lincoln signed words on a piece of paper but were those words actually honored?

Not really.

At the time of "emancipation" 80 percent of Americas GNP was tied to slavery. America, not just the south. Blacks got none of the money. In January of 1865, Special Field Order 15 was issued. Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia In July 1865, Circular 13, Resource Sheet #7 was issued by General Howard which fully authorized the lease of 40 acres of land to the newly freed slaves. As a result of this action 40,000 former slaves began work on several hundred thousand acres of land.

President Andrew Johnson killed that by his doing so removed those 40,000 blacks off that land and destroyed any income they could make. Meanwhile Johnson advocated for the homestead act and wanted to take plantation land and distribute it to whites without money.

Johnson pardoned most of the confederate leaders and they regained their prior positions of state leadership. By doing this, Johnson unleashed a reign of terror on blacks that really was nothing short of attempted ethnic cleansing. Blacks were beaten, scalped, killed, set on fire with their bodies left in the streets to rot.

A representative from the Johnson administration traveled the south and reported seeing black women scalped, or had their ears cut off, thrown into rivers and drowned. Black men and boys were clubbed, beaten, shot, some chained on trees and burned to death. State to state this man witnessed the stench of dead decomposing black bodies hanging from tree limbs, lying in ditches, and piled up on the roadways.

But blacks were free, right?

Now if anyone goes off topic, I expect the post to be eliminated .

The attitudes of Republicans have not changed. They keep their prejudices secret under their MAGA hats.

I think you are transferring your evil prejudices on to others....the KKK always blamed the blacks for their hatred of them....you are the new KKK...and America said screw that....and voted for Trump...and we will do just that again in November.....Progs have lost...we kicked your ideology to the curb...

Wrong.

This thread is specifically about what the government of these united states did to blacks after the years of slavery up until right now.

The republicans here want to take credit for ending slavery while simultaneously telling us that they should not be held responsible for what their ancestors did before they were born. In standard republican fashion everybody else must take responsibility but them. However in the 150 or so years after slavery things have happened that most of these guys don't want to discuss. It is time to take a look at what has happened.

Lincoln signed words on a piece of paper but were those words actually honored?

Not really.

At the time of "emancipation" 80 percent of Americas GNP was tied to slavery. America, not just the south. Blacks got none of the money. In January of 1865, Special Field Order 15 was issued. Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia In July 1865, Circular 13, Resource Sheet #7 was issued by General Howard which fully authorized the lease of 40 acres of land to the newly freed slaves. As a result of this action 40,000 former slaves began work on several hundred thousand acres of land.

President Andrew Johnson killed that by his doing so removed those 40,000 blacks off that land and destroyed any income they could make. Meanwhile Johnson advocated for the homestead act and wanted to take plantation land and distribute it to whites without money.

Johnson pardoned most of the confederate leaders and they regained their prior positions of state leadership. By doing this, Johnson unleashed a reign of terror on blacks that really was nothing short of attempted ethnic cleansing. Blacks were beaten, scalped, killed, set on fire with their bodies left in the streets to rot.

A representative from the Johnson administration traveled the south and reported seeing black women scalped, or had their ears cut off, thrown into rivers and drowned. Black men and boys were clubbed, beaten, shot, some chained on trees and burned to death. State to state this man witnessed the stench of dead decomposing black bodies hanging from tree limbs, lying in ditches, and piled up on the roadways.

But blacks were free, right?

Now if anyone goes off topic, I expect the post to be eliminated .

You know, when I fuck up (it happens on occasion) I take full responsibility for that fuck up.

I've done nothing to blacks.

Nothing.

Accordingly, I'll be damned if I'm going to take responsibility for something someone did before I was born.

It would be the height of stupidity to do something like that.

What's your stance on reparations, IM2?

Another ignorant comment from a white person doing the same thing the generations of whites before him did while talking about not being responsible for what he wasn't around for. This thread is about what government at every level has done to blacks since slavery to include this very second. Not reparations. You take responsibility for the effects of the revolutionary war, whites here tell me how grateful I am to be to a republican president for something he did before you were born, so you can just forget about that silly argument here.

Are you fucking drunk?

What the fuck does any of that bullshit even mean?

I don't "take responsibility" for the effects of the Revolutionary War. I enjoy the freedoms found, though, because of it. I don't hate Brits as you hate whites, nor do I blame them for the way they treated the colonists before the war. I applaud those who were being oppressed and for taking decisive action to stop it. If you think you're being oppressed, stop acting like a little girl and do something about. Whining about it only make people dismiss you.

You take responsibility for the effects of the revolutionary war, whites here tell me how grateful I am to be to a republican president for something he did before you were born, so you can just forget about that silly argument here.

Seriously, that's not even a sober sentence. "whites tell me how grateful I am to be to a Republican President?

What the fuck?

And how am I responsible for something a President did before I was born?

I don't know if you've been hittin' the bottle or the bowl, but you'd be well served to put down whichever one it is...