The Rise of a New Black Conservative Movement

[WillowTree]

Do ewe idiots remember Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, Allen West, and on and on and on and on? Dew ewe remember what the left called them?

I know people who are related to Alan West and they call him a sellout. Rice and Powell were sellouts and only in recent years have stood up against the racism in the republican party. You can go on and on, but the black conservatives in this article do not represent the philosophy of the black conservatives republicans have pushed out in from of the American people. Most of you in here will not like black conservatives like the ones who are part of this movement.

‘Racism in the Republican Party’. Do you think it is unique to the Republican Party and does not exist in the Democrat Party?

Look, the republican party is opposed to all policies that have allowed blacks to inch closer to equality and have done so since Goldwater opposed the civil rights act. That is the difference between the p[arties today.

Factually speaking, Goldwater supported the propose Civil Rights Legislation of ‘57 and ‘60. Kennedy opposed Civil Rights legislation a few short years earlier in ‘57. Neither man was opposed to Civil Rights.

I do tire of whites trying to argue with me about this. There is a reason black republicans did not support the republican platform or candidate in 1964 and called both racist.

Tire yourself all you want but that does not change the fact that Goldwater opposed the legislation in ‘64 but not Civil Rights just as Kennedy did in ‘57. What is disturbing is how almost overnight many Democrats with names like Fulbright, Gore, Byrd... who spent years pushing segregation now all of the sudden embraced the Legislation and are credited for “supporting civil rights”.

Again, there is a reason blacks condemned Goldwater and the republican platform of 1964, walked put of the convention, supported Johnson and publicly declared the platform and candidate as racist.

You republicans spend a whole lot of time lying about your history. I know all about those democrats you named and Al Gore Jr was not his father. Later on Robert Byrd apologized and publicly denounced his past position. Meanwhile:

View attachment 336701

Strom Thurmond apologized too yet that did not stop Democrats from excoriating him over the years. Byrd oversaw a group that terrorized, assaulted and killed Blacks. Thurmond was a segregationalist. Big difference. The bullshit factor is the that Blacks and Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder with Byrd not because of his apology but simply because he had a (D) at the end of his name.

Strom Thurmond stayed racist and didn't apologize until he was on his death bed. I didn't like Robert Byrd and never voted for him. Nor did most every other black person unless they lived in West Virginia. You talk about Byrd and I'm talking about your party's opposition to civil rights, affirmative action and racial equality up to right now. Look at these republicans here in this forum, so fuck that shit about Robert Byrd, you 've got people like Steve King, Kris Kobach and other white supremacists in your party today. And spare me your whining because you support trump and all his bullshit only because he has an R by his fucking name.

Republicans led the charge for Civil Rights for decades. Democrats got on board for political capital, that’s it. The Civil Rights legislation that Democrats got behind came packaged with more power to the Federal Government which is what Republicans opposed, not Civil Rights.

Democrats didn't get on board for "political capital". They got on board because Kennedy told them to. Keeping black people down and denying them economic opportunities was increasing poverty for the whole nation. Holding people back from achieving their full potential is economically destructive and just plain stupid, that once there were no legal impediments to hold black people back, they immediately started rising out of poverty.

Just look at the drop in poverty that ensued from the economic opportunities which the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson opened up for blacks and other minorities. If just those things gave the entire country a huge economic boost and helped created today's black middle class, imagine the economic boost across all classes if the economic potential of all Americans were suddenly to be unleashed.

That is true. The republicans in their race pimping strategy fail to note that American poverty was cut in half by the Johnson War on poverty, meaning that it worked. Black poverty has remained double that of whites even with more high school and college graduates and an the development of a black middle class. So then when I continue saying that the root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism, these are some of the reasons that support my conclusion.

Oh STFU. Johnson instituted cradle to grave welfare. That's what Johnson did. Never work and be poor but have every need met and suck off of taxpayers for generations. That's what LBJ did. Dork.

That's no way for men to live. Men (yes, the black ones, too) know this. It's kind of intuitive if you're a real man.

No he did not. Stupid ignorant uneducated Republicans ignore the poverty statistics of the fifties and early sixties. Of course you Confederate types have no problem with blacks being poor, since you think they're all lazy. If black people are so lazy, how did plantation owners get so wealthy off their labour?

Ignorant racist and Repubican is no way to go through life.

How many blacks would have already starved to death if not for LBJ welfare? All the lazy ones.

Idk if Canada welcomed runaway slaves, but I do know Florida did, you Canuck goober.

The Johnson 200 Year Plan is what ultimately sold Democrats to at least stop lynching Blacks.

Republicans lynched us too. And today republicans still are. Ask Amaud Arbery.

Historically, what, when and where did Republicans lynch Blacks? Amaud Arbery was caught coming out of a house not his in his kakis and boots supposedly jogging before he went for guns of folks trying to make a citizens arrest. If you don’t believe in the power of the citizen to protect himself and his community.

Blacks were lynched by whites. Bi partisan. What you said about Arbery is not true. Again, you republicans need to stop lying about your party's history. Todays republican party is not the same party as it was in the 1860's and todays republican party does not represent the same principles. The claims you make pertaining to race are dishonest. Anyone who has studied history knows this.

Your retort failed to provide where Republicans lynched Blacks. You said it was done by whites? Show us empirical evidence that they were Republicans?

Lynching was done by whites. It was bi partisan. What you don't want to believe is of no importance to me. You cannot show that every klansman was a democrat or that every lynching was dine by democrats.

The KKK was started by Democrats in the South. Republicans were not welcome in the South. The KKK did the lynchings. Fast forward, in the Northern city of Boston bu, heavily Democrats, whites protested busing in Boston. That’s your party.

KKK was started by disgruntled Confederates upset about no longer being able to own other people.

That slavery was in place 200 years before the formation of the Democratic Party. When Democrats turned on the racist policies of Jim Crow, the racist south turned to Republicans for solace

KKK was started by disgruntled Confederates Democrats upset about no longer being able to own other people.

Fixed that fer ya. The KKK killed more white people than black. True story.

They were the ANTIFA of yesteryear, and they were more violent.

My grandmother stopped 3 KKK from hanging her father with a butcher knife. I know what they were.

Count on clapping seal Marion, a guy who has more than 54,000 posts since 2017, all of them cultishly supporting every lie Republicans have ever fed him, and every bullshit divisive policy that Putin and Trump favours, and whose racism and hatred towards his any of his fellow Americans who aren't male and white, is well established in this post. I love how all of the members of the 1000 post a month club have people who have died or have been physically threatened by Democrats!!! Oh the humanity!!!

I don't what American history they feed you at the troll farm, Duke, but those lies you just told about the KKK have been debunked numerous times.

The KKK was started by disgruntled Confederate soldiers who were fed up with the Yankee carpetbaggers who flooded the South after the war, to pick the bones of the Confederacy, and who looted the plantations of their art, their silver wear, jewellry and other valuables. They put on hoods and attacked the carpetbaggers.

But gradually the Klan changed. They started attacking anything that challenged the old ways of life. Catholics, Jews, non-whites. Anyone who did business with black people - who sold them property, or supplies or in any way helped black people rise, became the "enemy".

The KKK was all about maintaining the racist pecking order, and ANYONE who tried to change it was fair game. The KKK is a white nationalist terrorist organization not affiliated with one party or the other, but rather with keeping people in the rightful places, and messing with anyone who tries to change it.

Kind of like the entire Republican Party today. Except today, the racists aren't wearing hoods.

“Racism” is such a broadly used term and interpreted many different ways today.

Racism hides behind many masks these days. For example, there is the racism that says that social programs to assist low income Americans is designed to keep people "dependent" and that people should have their assistance cut off to force them to "stand on their own two feet". Or that "laziness" and "criminal behaviour" are a result of race.

The manner in which the Republican Party has pitted rural voters against urban voters is the very definition of "racism", and yet I'm sure you'll deny any such thing.

I lived in a multi-racial neighbourhood in downtown Toronto for 30 years. White people made up about 25% of my neighbourhood, and it was one of the most expensive and highly sought after neighbourhoods in Toronto, three blocks from Lake Ontario, where it's not safe to swim. Our school newsletter came home in 9 different languages. The late Jack Layton, Leader of the ultra left wing New Democratic Party, was our Member of Parliament.

I retired to another lakeside town, but this one is so small, that everything is a 10 minute walk away. I'm still 3 blocks from water I can't swim in, but the blocks are shorter. Our Riding is as Conservative as it gets. The Minister of Health for the Harper Conservative Government is our MP. And it's whiter than white. The non-whites we do see are from the local Six Nations reservation. There are lots of Native Canadians around, but very few blacks or Asians. I hear the same things about lazy "urban" welfare bums out here, that I read online.

Inner city poverty isn't related to laziness or criminality. It costs two to three times as much to live in the City, as it does in the country. My daughter's two storey detached house in a trendy West Toronto neighbourhood, with almost no yard at all, cost her 3X what her two storey detached house on 2 acres of rural farmland is costing her. My rent controlled two bedroom apartment with private, in-suite laundry, 3 blocks from shopping, hospital, and waterside park, costs me 1/4 what similar digs in Toronto cost. $14 per/hr minimum wage goes a WHOLE lot further out here than it does in the City.

There are more poor people in the city, because there are things available in the city that aren't available in the country. Like public transit, subsidized day care programs, retraining programs, and recreation facilities with pools, gyms, and social programs for free. Most large corporations offer special compensation deals to executives to allow them to afford housing in Cities. That used to include school boards as well. Teachers in large urban areas received extra compensation for the cost of housing.

Homes for the working class in cities are so expensive that it really does take two good incomes just to keep a roof over your head. There's also more low paying jobs, but there's more competition for those jobs, so it's hard to get ahead, or to rise on your merits. They can replace you in a heartbeat and they will. Keep your head down, don't make waves, and work your ass off because if you don't, someone else will, and it's not hard to find someone who can do your job.

When you look at what has happened to hourly rated workers, in terms of wages and benefits over the past 40 years, it's hard not to look at this as anything but an attack on working people. To enslave them to government benefits like "earned income credits". Anything to keep money out of the hands of working people. To force them to accept any conditions the corporations wish to inflict on them for wages that aren't even survival level wages.

People out here are enthusiastically embracing publically owned recreation facilities, geared to income housing for seniors, but decry the drug addict bums on the corner who are too lazy to work. And they think that all those people on welfare and social assistance in the city are just like those who are "using" the system here. Since it's basically an all-white town, they have no real life experience with people of colour and they just look at over-policing statistics and assume that it's race that are driving these numbers, and not a whole lot of other factors.

I mean it's a whole lot easier to say that inner city poverty is because non-white are lazy and criminal than it is to say that inner city poverty is because there aren't enough jobs for all of the people in the city, and competition drives the wages down. People who easily replaced can't negotiate raises. My (white) neighbour went to his boss and said he shows up 20 minutes early every day and gets out into the yard right at 8:00. He gets his assigned work done in half the time of his co-workers, with more accuracy, and he's never destroyed expensive equipment, or gotten the company written up for violating workplace safety rules, so he should make more money, because of his superior performance. His boss said this is what the job pays. I can't do anything for you.

Corporate America has decided what a job is worth. Walmart in particular, lowered the average retail wage across America by destroying the competition so employees had nowhere else to work, and then just cutting hours and wages. Besides, low wage workers can get MedicAid, food stamps, and earned income credits.

$7.25 per hour is $290/week before withholding. After withholding, it's $246.50/wk for a 40 hour week. Less than $1100 per month. A minimum wage worker can afford to pay $267 per month for rent. Even if you were to double this wage to $14.50, that's still gives the worker a housing budget of about $525 per month. And we have yet to discuss child care.

I have noticed that the people who are poor in the country, are the drunks, the drug addicts, and the chronically unemployed. Poor people in the city are families just trying to keep a roof over their heads. Our here, if you have a ne'er do well kid, you get him a job with the County. Too lazy to farm, can't hold a job, you get him a job with the County. The kid will have a decent income, and as one in our circle once said "As long as I don't get drunk on the job and rape a teacher, I'm set for life". These jobs don't exist in the City. They exist, but you can't just call up your local councillor and ask for a "favour". Such fixes thrive in the country. In the city, this kid would end up poor and on welfare.

In the country, friends and neighbours will pull together when someone goes through a bad patch, but in the city, everyone who's poor is going through a "bad patch". My city church did raise enough money to cover our operating expenses in a year. There was precious little left for the poor. Our big annual fundraiser raised $1000 in a good year. Our here, the big annual fundraiser raises $15,000, and that's in just one congregation. As an elder scrambling to keep our city congregation afloat, I was shocked by the numbers.

I also see the same suspicions against "others" out here that I see on this board, although not as rabidly as posters here. But Canadians have a much different attitude towards government and government programs. Our government works, and it works for the PEOPLE first. We also don't have politicians constantly trying to keep poor Canadians fighting amongst themselves, so we don't band together and throw them all out of office and elect a PEOPLE FIRST government, instead of a corporatist state.

50% of Americans pay taxes! 50% do not. What percentage of Canadians pay taxes?We have generational welfare. Do ewe have generational welfare? How many illegal aliens dew ewe have to provide for out of your hard earned money? Key word illegal?

 

[WillowTree]

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.

www.washingtontimes.com

This does not sound like a stunning success to me!

Did you look at the unemployment statistics during the same time frame, or any economic indicator at all? It is in fact a success, because it put cash assistance into the pockets of needy Americans at a time when the whole country was hurting economically. Something that the right hates with a white hot rage. Giving cash to the poor.
The right will give billions to corporations to distribute to the shareholders, but not one thin dime to the people hurt most by their economic stupidity.

It took cash from working Americcans and gave it to those who did not work. Why would I look at the unemployment stats when the liberals assure us Obummet’s economy was an unmitigated success? The question is if it was so successful why did food stamp usage skyrocket? Got it now dumbass?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Do ewe idiots remember Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, Allen West, and on and on and on and on? Dew ewe remember what the left called them?

I know people who are related to Alan West and they call him a sellout. Rice and Powell were sellouts and only in recent years have stood up against the racism in the republican party. You can go on and on, but the black conservatives in this article do not represent the philosophy of the black conservatives republicans have pushed out in from of the American people. Most of you in here will not like black conservatives like the ones who are part of this movement.

‘Racism in the Republican Party’. Do you think it is unique to the Republican Party and does not exist in the Democrat Party?

Look, the republican party is opposed to all policies that have allowed blacks to inch closer to equality and have done so since Goldwater opposed the civil rights act. That is the difference between the p[arties today.

Factually speaking, Goldwater supported the propose Civil Rights Legislation of ‘57 and ‘60. Kennedy opposed Civil Rights legislation a few short years earlier in ‘57. Neither man was opposed to Civil Rights.

I do tire of whites trying to argue with me about this. There is a reason black republicans did not support the republican platform or candidate in 1964 and called both racist.

Tire yourself all you want but that does not change the fact that Goldwater opposed the legislation in ‘64 but not Civil Rights just as Kennedy did in ‘57. What is disturbing is how almost overnight many Democrats with names like Fulbright, Gore, Byrd... who spent years pushing segregation now all of the sudden embraced the Legislation and are credited for “supporting civil rights”.

Again, there is a reason blacks condemned Goldwater and the republican platform of 1964, walked put of the convention, supported Johnson and publicly declared the platform and candidate as racist.

You republicans spend a whole lot of time lying about your history. I know all about those democrats you named and Al Gore Jr was not his father. Later on Robert Byrd apologized and publicly denounced his past position. Meanwhile:

View attachment 336701

Strom Thurmond apologized too yet that did not stop Democrats from excoriating him over the years. Byrd oversaw a group that terrorized, assaulted and killed Blacks. Thurmond was a segregationalist. Big difference. The bullshit factor is the that Blacks and Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder with Byrd not because of his apology but simply because he had a (D) at the end of his name.

Strom Thurmond stayed racist and didn't apologize until he was on his death bed. I didn't like Robert Byrd and never voted for him. Nor did most every other black person unless they lived in West Virginia. You talk about Byrd and I'm talking about your party's opposition to civil rights, affirmative action and racial equality up to right now. Look at these republicans here in this forum, so fuck that shit about Robert Byrd, you 've got people like Steve King, Kris Kobach and other white supremacists in your party today. And spare me your whining because you support trump and all his bullshit only because he has an R by his fucking name.

Republicans led the charge for Civil Rights for decades. Democrats got on board for political capital, that’s it. The Civil Rights legislation that Democrats got behind came packaged with more power to the Federal Government which is what Republicans opposed, not Civil Rights.

Democrats didn't get on board for "political capital". They got on board because Kennedy told them to. Keeping black people down and denying them economic opportunities was increasing poverty for the whole nation. Holding people back from achieving their full potential is economically destructive and just plain stupid, that once there were no legal impediments to hold black people back, they immediately started rising out of poverty.

Just look at the drop in poverty that ensued from the economic opportunities which the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson opened up for blacks and other minorities. If just those things gave the entire country a huge economic boost and helped created today's black middle class, imagine the economic boost across all classes if the economic potential of all Americans were suddenly to be unleashed.

That is true. The republicans in their race pimping strategy fail to note that American poverty was cut in half by the Johnson War on poverty, meaning that it worked. Black poverty has remained double that of whites even with more high school and college graduates and an the development of a black middle class. So then when I continue saying that the root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism, these are some of the reasons that support my conclusion.

Oh STFU. Johnson instituted cradle to grave welfare. That's what Johnson did. Never work and be poor but have every need met and suck off of taxpayers for generations. That's what LBJ did. Dork.

That's no way for men to live. Men (yes, the black ones, too) know this. It's kind of intuitive if you're a real man.

No he did not. Stupid ignorant uneducated Republicans ignore the poverty statistics of the fifties and early sixties. Of course you Confederate types have no problem with blacks being poor, since you think they're all lazy. If black people are so lazy, how did plantation owners get so wealthy off their labour?

Ignorant racist and Repubican is no way to go through life.

How many blacks would have already starved to death if not for LBJ welfare? All the lazy ones.

Idk if Canada welcomed runaway slaves, but I do know Florida did, you Canuck goober.

The Johnson 200 Year Plan is what ultimately sold Democrats to at least stop lynching Blacks.

Republicans lynched us too. And today republicans still are. Ask Amaud Arbery.

Historically, what, when and where did Republicans lynch Blacks? Amaud Arbery was caught coming out of a house not his in his kakis and boots supposedly jogging before he went for guns of folks trying to make a citizens arrest. If you don’t believe in the power of the citizen to protect himself and his community.

Blacks were lynched by whites. Bi partisan. What you said about Arbery is not true. Again, you republicans need to stop lying about your party's history. Todays republican party is not the same party as it was in the 1860's and todays republican party does not represent the same principles. The claims you make pertaining to race are dishonest. Anyone who has studied history knows this.

Your retort failed to provide where Republicans lynched Blacks. You said it was done by whites? Show us empirical evidence that they were Republicans?

Lynching was done by whites. It was bi partisan. What you don't want to believe is of no importance to me. You cannot show that every klansman was a democrat or that every lynching was dine by democrats.

The KKK was started by Democrats in the South. Republicans were not welcome in the South. The KKK did the lynchings. Fast forward, in the Northern city of Boston bu, heavily Democrats, whites protested busing in Boston. That’s your party.

KKK was started by disgruntled Confederates upset about no longer being able to own other people.

That slavery was in place 200 years before the formation of the Democratic Party. When Democrats turned on the racist policies of Jim Crow, the racist south turned to Republicans for solace

KKK was started by disgruntled Confederates Democrats upset about no longer being able to own other people.

Fixed that fer ya. The KKK killed more white people than black. True story.

They were the ANTIFA of yesteryear, and they were more violent.

My grandmother stopped 3 KKK from hanging her father with a butcher knife. I know what they were.

Count on clapping seal Marion, a guy who has more than 54,000 posts since 2017, all of them cultishly supporting every lie Republicans have ever fed him, and every bullshit divisive policy that Putin and Trump favours, and whose racism and hatred towards his any of his fellow Americans who aren't male and white, is well established in this post. I love how all of the members of the 1000 post a month club have people who have died or have been physically threatened by Democrats!!! Oh the humanity!!!

I don't what American history they feed you at the troll farm, Duke, but those lies you just told about the KKK have been debunked numerous times.

The KKK was started by disgruntled Confederate soldiers who were fed up with the Yankee carpetbaggers who flooded the South after the war, to pick the bones of the Confederacy, and who looted the plantations of their art, their silver wear, jewellry and other valuables. They put on hoods and attacked the carpetbaggers.

But gradually the Klan changed. They started attacking anything that challenged the old ways of life. Catholics, Jews, non-whites. Anyone who did business with black people - who sold them property, or supplies or in any way helped black people rise, became the "enemy".

The KKK was all about maintaining the racist pecking order, and ANYONE who tried to change it was fair game. The KKK is a white nationalist terrorist organization not affiliated with one party or the other, but rather with keeping people in the rightful places, and messing with anyone who tries to change it.

Kind of like the entire Republican Party today. Except today, the racists aren't wearing hoods.

“Racism” is such a broadly used term and interpreted many different ways today.

Racism hides behind many masks these days. For example, there is the racism that says that social programs to assist low income Americans is designed to keep people "dependent" and that people should have their assistance cut off to force them to "stand on their own two feet". Or that "laziness" and "criminal behaviour" are a result of race.

The manner in which the Republican Party has pitted rural voters against urban voters is the very definition of "racism", and yet I'm sure you'll deny any such thing.

I lived in a multi-racial neighbourhood in downtown Toronto for 30 years. White people made up about 25% of my neighbourhood, and it was one of the most expensive and highly sought after neighbourhoods in Toronto, three blocks from Lake Ontario, where it's not safe to swim. Our school newsletter came home in 9 different languages. The late Jack Layton, Leader of the ultra left wing New Democratic Party, was our Member of Parliament.

I retired to another lakeside town, but this one is so small, that everything is a 10 minute walk away. I'm still 3 blocks from water I can't swim in, but the blocks are shorter. Our Riding is as Conservative as it gets. The Minister of Health for the Harper Conservative Government is our MP. And it's whiter than white. The non-whites we do see are from the local Six Nations reservation. There are lots of Native Canadians around, but very few blacks or Asians. I hear the same things about lazy "urban" welfare bums out here, that I read online.

Inner city poverty isn't related to laziness or criminality. It costs two to three times as much to live in the City, as it does in the country. My daughter's two storey detached house in a trendy West Toronto neighbourhood, with almost no yard at all, cost her 3X what her two storey detached house on 2 acres of rural farmland is costing her. My rent controlled two bedroom apartment with private, in-suite laundry, 3 blocks from shopping, hospital, and waterside park, costs me 1/4 what similar digs in Toronto cost. $14 per/hr minimum wage goes a WHOLE lot further out here than it does in the City.

There are more poor people in the city, because there are things available in the city that aren't available in the country. Like public transit, subsidized day care programs, retraining programs, and recreation facilities with pools, gyms, and social programs for free. Most large corporations offer special compensation deals to executives to allow them to afford housing in Cities. That used to include school boards as well. Teachers in large urban areas received extra compensation for the cost of housing.

Homes for the working class in cities are so expensive that it really does take two good incomes just to keep a roof over your head. There's also more low paying jobs, but there's more competition for those jobs, so it's hard to get ahead, or to rise on your merits. They can replace you in a heartbeat and they will. Keep your head down, don't make waves, and work your ass off because if you don't, someone else will, and it's not hard to find someone who can do your job.

When you look at what has happened to hourly rated workers, in terms of wages and benefits over the past 40 years, it's hard not to look at this as anything but an attack on working people. To enslave them to government benefits like "earned income credits". Anything to keep money out of the hands of working people. To force them to accept any conditions the corporations wish to inflict on them for wages that aren't even survival level wages.

People out here are enthusiastically embracing publically owned recreation facilities, geared to income housing for seniors, but decry the drug addict bums on the corner who are too lazy to work. And they think that all those people on welfare and social assistance in the city are just like those who are "using" the system here. Since it's basically an all-white town, they have no real life experience with people of colour and they just look at over-policing statistics and assume that it's race that are driving these numbers, and not a whole lot of other factors.

I mean it's a whole lot easier to say that inner city poverty is because non-white are lazy and criminal than it is to say that inner city poverty is because there aren't enough jobs for all of the people in the city, and competition drives the wages down. People who easily replaced can't negotiate raises. My (white) neighbour went to his boss and said he shows up 20 minutes early every day and gets out into the yard right at 8:00. He gets his assigned work done in half the time of his co-workers, with more accuracy, and he's never destroyed expensive equipment, or gotten the company written up for violating workplace safety rules, so he should make more money, because of his superior performance. His boss said this is what the job pays. I can't do anything for you.

Corporate America has decided what a job is worth. Walmart in particular, lowered the average retail wage across America by destroying the competition so employees had nowhere else to work, and then just cutting hours and wages. Besides, low wage workers can get MedicAid, food stamps, and earned income credits.

$7.25 per hour is $290/week before withholding. After withholding, it's $246.50/wk for a 40 hour week. Less than $1100 per month. A minimum wage worker can afford to pay $267 per month for rent. Even if you were to double this wage to $14.50, that's still gives the worker a housing budget of about $525 per month. And we have yet to discuss child care.

I have noticed that the people who are poor in the country, are the drunks, the drug addicts, and the chronically unemployed. Poor people in the city are families just trying to keep a roof over their heads. Our here, if you have a ne'er do well kid, you get him a job with the County. Too lazy to farm, can't hold a job, you get him a job with the County. The kid will have a decent income, and as one in our circle once said "As long as I don't get drunk on the job and rape a teacher, I'm set for life". These jobs don't exist in the City. They exist, but you can't just call up your local councillor and ask for a "favour". Such fixes thrive in the country. In the city, this kid would end up poor and on welfare.

In the country, friends and neighbours will pull together when someone goes through a bad patch, but in the city, everyone who's poor is going through a "bad patch". My city church did raise enough money to cover our operating expenses in a year. There was precious little left for the poor. Our big annual fundraiser raised $1000 in a good year. Our here, the big annual fundraiser raises $15,000, and that's in just one congregation. As an elder scrambling to keep our city congregation afloat, I was shocked by the numbers.

I also see the same suspicions against "others" out here that I see on this board, although not as rabidly as posters here. But Canadians have a much different attitude towards government and government programs. Our government works, and it works for the PEOPLE first. We also don't have politicians constantly trying to keep poor Canadians fighting amongst themselves, so we don't band together and throw them all out of office and elect a PEOPLE FIRST government, instead of a corporatist state.

What you just described is mostly socioeconomic where race cannot be ignored but I think it is more racial vs racist. Racist is where by the color, creed, or ethnicity, one believes that person is beneath them or can never be good enough. I’ve had Asian and Indian managers at separate IT companies who originated from other countries tell me outright “ that American (whites) and especially Blacks and Hispanics - cannot be as good IT engineers as Asians”. THAT is racism. As one who has Hispanic, Black, and Jewish relatives, that is where I felt racism in its defined ugly form to be alive and well globally and not exclusively to be held by whites.

 

[MarcATL]

Senator Tim Scott from S Carolina is one of the new black conservatives.

He calls Republicans on the hate rhetoric and pushes new conservatism

He's pretty much an establishment hack though. I haven't seen him go against Republicans on just about anything substantive.

 

[MarcATL]

Republicans won't change until they're bludgeoned into change.

They have to run out of the white racist vote before they even BEGIN to change.

Too many of those bastards are still alive.

In about 8 years or so. You'll see them start crying. That's when it'll become more obvious that whites aren't going to be the majority in the future.

Until such time their racism and racist policies will kkkuntinue as it has been.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.

www.washingtontimes.com

This does not sound like a stunning success to me!

Did you look at the unemployment statistics during the same time frame, or any economic indicator at all? It is in fact a success, because it put cash assistance into the pockets of needy Americans at a time when the whole country was hurting economically. Something that the right hates with a white hot rage. Giving cash to the poor.
The right will give billions to corporations to distribute to the shareholders, but not one thin dime to the people hurt most by their economic stupidity.

It took cash from working Americcans and gave it to those who did not work. Why would I look at the unemployment stats when the liberals assure us Obummet’s economy was an unmitigated success? The question is if it was so successful why did food stamp usage skyrocket? Got it now dumbass?

Food stamps skyrocketed and stay skyrocketed because of Boosh LOL. All things bad- Bush, Trump. All things good that Bush and Trump did - Obama. Obama’s level of accountability: 0.

 

[WillowTree]

You ever noticed how that dumb Canadian lectures the US then when asked pertinent questions to her absurdities she tucks tail and runs?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Republicans are the ones with no message for blacks

The MESSAGE is for ALL human beings. You just cant see beyond your own obsession with skin color

 

[Dragonlady]

...Facts, not a victim mindset...

You declaring something a 'fact' does not render it thus. The 'victim mindset' within your 'collective' is alive and well and holding 'you' back.

...

Not only is the legislated unfairness not dead...

Oh, please, enlighten us, with a substantive example of such 'legislative unfairness' that is (a) still extant and (b) still operative and still being enforced, on a scale large enough to be statistically significant on a nationwide basis.

...the damage created by past deeds has not been fixed...

And never, ever will be. It's what happens when Advanced Technology Civilizations meet Stone-Age Nomadic and Hunter-Gatherer primitive cultures.

White American paid for slavery in-full when it lost 600,000+ war-dead in a four-year-long Civil War to abolish slavery, as well as to preserve the Union.

And it paid for 100 years of Jim Crow with 50-60 years of Affirmative Action in government service, the military, prep-school and college admissions, and large corporations.

Your own collective failure to take full advantage of such accommodations is not the fault of White America nor the Federal nor State governments who provided that leg-up.

...There is no such thing as a victim mindset in the black community...

Rubbish... you, yourself, are a classic example of just that.

...The use of that term is common among whites like you who try racial gaslighting...

Truth-telling and the articulation of honest and widespread opinion does not constitute 'gaslighting'... attempted deflection noted... ignored.

...It's crazy talk because there is no such thing as political correctness...

1. No such thing? You are as wrong as wrong can be.

2. the presence or absence of 'politically correct filters' does not prove nor disprove the truthfulness or rationality of an argument

...We don't hold a majority in many major cities...

Yes and No. The White Vote is honestly split between two parties. The Black Vote is nearly monolithic in favor of the Party of Freebies (D).

When you halve the White Vote, the monolithic Black Vote oftentimes dominates, politically.

...Hispanics face the same racism...

Not really. They look and act more like White Folk. They are more readily recognized as hard workers and independent thinkers. They face bias, but not like Black Folk.,

...and when you talk about collective, it shows that you have released yourself from the reality of the 243 years of the white collective you have been part of your entire life...

Wrong again. I value my membership in that broader tribe. I do not apologize for it. Why-in-the-world should I?

...Everything whites have the givernment gave it to you...

You are delusional in this matter

...You talk about government social services and whites are the ones that have made a lifestyle out of it. It's been an American tradition...

Oh, really?

There is no doubt that more White Americans are on Welfare than there are Black Americans on Welfare.

Predictable, given that Whites represent some 72-77% of the US population and that Blacks only represent 12% .

No... what's REALLY "telling" is the PERCENTAGE of each group that is on Welfare, as may be illustrated by the following government statistics in a 30-year study...

View attachment 337420
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026/tables/table_32.asp

And, beyond sheer and damning percentages, we also need to look at the percentage within each demographic that REMAIN on welfare for extended periods of time, and also factor-in 'recidivism'.

Sorry... even a cursory glance beyond the simple-simon Raw Numbers you like to tout serves to expose the foolhardiness of relying solely upon such figures.

In any in-depth examination, 'you' are going to lose such an argument every time.

...Like I said, you're talking crazy...

You declaring it thus does not render it thus.

...And your perspective isn't really all that common...

Feel free to continue deluding yourself with that counterargument.

The truth is, most White Folk are far too busy living life... raising families, shaping careers, taking care of their homes, etc... to worry about you-and-yours overly much.

And that goes for many Democrats as well as Republicans. One main difference between the two is how much loose change they're willing to throw at your tribe.

But, once the debate cools down, both go back to their far safer suburbs and high-end stores and schools and go on with their own lives and do not give you a second thought.

In the case of the Democrats, not even a first thought, except to keep you on the hook for another four years until they need you again, and you fall for it, every time.

...but it is enough of a problem that it needs to end...

Of course. And one day the Lions and Lambs will lie down together and there will be Peace in the Valley.

Overall... occasional spikes in racial turmoil not withstanding... race relations have been getting better with each passing year since the 1960s. Most of us are content that it be so.

But when you pi$$ and moan over 40-acres-and-a-mule (metaphorically speaking) and tell us that we have to change our way of thinking, then you've got a hard row to hoe.

You lack the resources and muscle to force the issue, and legislation and education only takes us so far towards any such lofty goal.

It is far more realistic to strive for Peaceful Coexistence and Mutual Respect and Exploiting Commonalities than it is to continue pressing past Donor Exhaustion for more freebies.

...Nope, they are the types who seek approval from whites so badly that they will allow themselves to be degraded and used by whites to their disadvantage...

[
Some are.

Most aren't.

When I see a Black professional or tradesman, I (and most White Folk) see a professional or tradesman first, and skin-color second.

...I am not a black conservative, built 3 organizations and retired young enough to where today I get paid to do personal projects on my own time...

Thank you for your CV, but it is quite clear that you have built your Mindset, if not your career, on a foundation of Victim Mentality and Forty-Acres-and-a-Mule.

...There ain't no such thing as color blind...

True. But there can be Peaceful Coexistence and Mutual Respect and the Exploiting of Commonalities.

..., and there won't be until the damage whites created by 243 years of color conscious society building is fixed.

Your 20th-great-grandchildren should live so long.

Wake us up, when you get the British and Spanish and Portugese and Dutch to agree to chip-in with their fair share of any such Fantasy Reparations.

Not to mention hitting-up the Muslim descendants of the Arab Slave Traders and African Tribes who caught and wholesaled those poor unfortunates, centuries ago.

Get all of them to agree to contribute their own fair share, then strip-out the cost of 600,000 war-dead from the 1860s, and the cash value of 50-60 years of Affirmative Action, and come up with a Reparations Recipient Identifier and Payment Calculator system that those paying the freight can agree upon, and you might actually have a shot at that.

Good luck with that.

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

This is all to say that a great many White Folk in the country don't mind if our Black fellow-citizens grab their own fair share of the pie.

It's just that we're done hand-delivering that slice... it's time to get off 'your' dead a$$ and get it yourselves.

And, of course, these Inequality and Reparations themes appear to be cornerstones of your own existence; you eat, sleep and breathe it.

I hate to break it to you but, beyond your own 'collective', it's not exactly either a regularly-occurring thought nor much of a priority, and quite frankly, that's unlikely to change.

If there is any truth in that, your long-term choices seem to be (a) fight or (b) mainstream.

I have great confidence that the majority of your colleagues will chose (b).

All your bullshit post cannot obscured what your chart shows in spades: Non-whites are routingly and systemically descriminated against such that poverty is higher in every non-white socio-economic group. I know that your aim is to prove that blacks are lazier and thus more likely to be on welfare than any other raciala group.

Instead your chart graphically illustrates that if you're dumb, white and lazy, you're still better off economically than being black, Hispanic, or Asian.

Notice how in times of economic hardship, how the welfare rate increase is double for non-whites than it is for white people. This is proof positive that in hard times, low income blacks, Latinos and Native Americans face greater financial hardship than white people.

You've posted all these conservative talking points on the sources and causes of poverty that still comes down to Republicans blame the poor for an economic system built to keep white people on top, non-whites struggling. This fiction that anybody can make it America is a Republican fairy tale.

In 1980, if you were born poor, you had a 20% chance, through education, hard work, and fiscal prudence, to work your way out of poverty. Today, your chances are less than 2%. Republicans have successfully murdered the American dream that in America everyone has the same chance to succeed.

 

[IM2]

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.

www.washingtontimes.com

This does not sound like a stunning success to me!

Did you look at the unemployment statistics during the same time frame, or any economic indicator at all? It is in fact a success, because it put cash assistance into the pockets of needy Americans at a time when the whole country was hurting economically. Something that the right hates with a white hot rage. Giving cash to the poor.
The right will give billions to corporations to distribute to the shareholders, but not one thin dime to the people hurt most by their economic stupidity.

It took cash from working Americcans and gave it to those who did not work. Why would I look at the unemployment stats when the liberals assure us Obummet’s economy was an unmitigated success? The question is if it was so successful why did food stamp usage skyrocket? Got it now dumbass?

Food stamps skyrocketed and stay skyrocketed because of Boosh LOL. All things bad- Bush, Trump. All things good that Bush and Trump did - Obama. Obama’s level of accountability: 0.

The economy was dead when Obama took over, the food stamps came as a result of that.

 

[Dragonlady]

Republicans are the ones with no message for blacks

The MESSAGE is for ALL human beings. You just cant see beyond your own obsession with skin color

Yes, and Santa Claus will bring toys to all of the good little girls and boys, so you better be good.

Next you'll be telling us that there is no such thing as "white privilege". The USA is one of the only 2 nations in the first world to spend less month on educating the children of the poor than the children of the rich. Where "legacy enrollments" ensure the child of rich white folks get first crack at the best schools, and the children of the poor get the least access. Where your zip code determines your health, your education and your future.

The Pilgrims fled Europe to escape the class system, the endless wars, and to have freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers were determined that America be a country with no class system, where all men were created equal. But today's Republican Party has completely bought into a race based class system where white are always on top.

The extreme right's obsession with "relacement", with limiting non-white immigration, with supressing the non-white vote, is all based on the racist ideas that non-whites are "inferior" and "lazy", and they come out with all of these facts and figures which prove white people are smarter, more industrious, and better financial managers than non-whites. Hence the "Democratic run shitholes".

All these studies really show is the extent and severity of the impact of systemic racism in American economic statistics. Reagan put an end to the War on Poverty not because it was failing, but because it was WORKING. Women and people of colour were rising up out of poverty and competing with white males for good jobs. Can't have white people getting aced out by smarter, harder working minorities!! So Ronnie shut down anything that might help the poor succeed and villified them as "Welfare Queens".

And the right has been parrotting these lies ever since.

 

[WillowTree]

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.

www.washingtontimes.com

This does not sound like a stunning success to me!

Did you look at the unemployment statistics during the same time frame, or any economic indicator at all? It is in fact a success, because it put cash assistance into the pockets of needy Americans at a time when the whole country was hurting economically. Something that the right hates with a white hot rage. Giving cash to the poor.
The right will give billions to corporations to distribute to the shareholders, but not one thin dime to the people hurt most by their economic stupidity.

It took cash from working Americcans and gave it to those who did not work. Why would I look at the unemployment stats when the liberals assure us Obummet’s economy was an unmitigated success? The question is if it was so successful why did food stamp usage skyrocket? Got it now dumbass?

Food stamps skyrocketed and stay skyrocketed because of Boosh LOL. All things bad- Bush, Trump. All things good that Bush and Trump did - Obama. Obama’s level of accountability: 0.

The economy was dead when Obama took over, the food stamps came as a result of that.

But they didn’t go down during his term dumb ass they rose by 70%.

 

[Kondor3]

...Facts, not a victim mindset...

You declaring something a 'fact' does not render it thus. The 'victim mindset' within your 'collective' is alive and well and holding 'you' back.

...

Not only is the legislated unfairness not dead...

Oh, please, enlighten us, with a substantive example of such 'legislative unfairness' that is (a) still extant and (b) still operative and still being enforced, on a scale large enough to be statistically significant on a nationwide basis.

...the damage created by past deeds has not been fixed...

And never, ever will be. It's what happens when Advanced Technology Civilizations meet Stone-Age Nomadic and Hunter-Gatherer primitive cultures.

White American paid for slavery in-full when it lost 600,000+ war-dead in a four-year-long Civil War to abolish slavery, as well as to preserve the Union.

And it paid for 100 years of Jim Crow with 50-60 years of Affirmative Action in government service, the military, prep-school and college admissions, and large corporations.

Your own collective failure to take full advantage of such accommodations is not the fault of White America nor the Federal nor State governments who provided that leg-up.

...There is no such thing as a victim mindset in the black community...

Rubbish... you, yourself, are a classic example of just that.

...The use of that term is common among whites like you who try racial gaslighting...

Truth-telling and the articulation of honest and widespread opinion does not constitute 'gaslighting'... attempted deflection noted... ignored.

...It's crazy talk because there is no such thing as political correctness...

1. No such thing? You are as wrong as wrong can be.

2. the presence or absence of 'politically correct filters' does not prove nor disprove the truthfulness or rationality of an argument

...We don't hold a majority in many major cities...

Yes and No. The White Vote is honestly split between two parties. The Black Vote is nearly monolithic in favor of the Party of Freebies (D).

When you halve the White Vote, the monolithic Black Vote oftentimes dominates, politically.

...Hispanics face the same racism...

Not really. They look and act more like White Folk. They are more readily recognized as hard workers and independent thinkers. They face bias, but not like Black Folk.,

...and when you talk about collective, it shows that you have released yourself from the reality of the 243 years of the white collective you have been part of your entire life...

Wrong again. I value my membership in that broader tribe. I do not apologize for it. Why-in-the-world should I?

...Everything whites have the givernment gave it to you...

You are delusional in this matter

...You talk about government social services and whites are the ones that have made a lifestyle out of it. It's been an American tradition...

Oh, really?

There is no doubt that more White Americans are on Welfare than there are Black Americans on Welfare.

Predictable, given that Whites represent some 72-77% of the US population and that Blacks only represent 12% .

No... what's REALLY "telling" is the PERCENTAGE of each group that is on Welfare, as may be illustrated by the following government statistics in a 30-year study...

View attachment 337420
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026/tables/table_32.asp

And, beyond sheer and damning percentages, we also need to look at the percentage within each demographic that REMAIN on welfare for extended periods of time, and also factor-in 'recidivism'.

Sorry... even a cursory glance beyond the simple-simon Raw Numbers you like to tout serves to expose the foolhardiness of relying solely upon such figures.

In any in-depth examination, 'you' are going to lose such an argument every time.

...Like I said, you're talking crazy...

You declaring it thus does not render it thus.

...And your perspective isn't really all that common...

Feel free to continue deluding yourself with that counterargument.

The truth is, most White Folk are far too busy living life... raising families, shaping careers, taking care of their homes, etc... to worry about you-and-yours overly much.

And that goes for many Democrats as well as Republicans. One main difference between the two is how much loose change they're willing to throw at your tribe.

But, once the debate cools down, both go back to their far safer suburbs and high-end stores and schools and go on with their own lives and do not give you a second thought.

In the case of the Democrats, not even a first thought, except to keep you on the hook for another four years until they need you again, and you fall for it, every time.

...but it is enough of a problem that it needs to end...

Of course. And one day the Lions and Lambs will lie down together and there will be Peace in the Valley.

Overall... occasional spikes in racial turmoil not withstanding... race relations have been getting better with each passing year since the 1960s. Most of us are content that it be so.

But when you pi$$ and moan over 40-acres-and-a-mule (metaphorically speaking) and tell us that we have to change our way of thinking, then you've got a hard row to hoe.

You lack the resources and muscle to force the issue, and legislation and education only takes us so far towards any such lofty goal.

It is far more realistic to strive for Peaceful Coexistence and Mutual Respect and Exploiting Commonalities than it is to continue pressing past Donor Exhaustion for more freebies.

...Nope, they are the types who seek approval from whites so badly that they will allow themselves to be degraded and used by whites to their disadvantage...

[
Some are.

Most aren't.

When I see a Black professional or tradesman, I (and most White Folk) see a professional or tradesman first, and skin-color second.

...I am not a black conservative, built 3 organizations and retired young enough to where today I get paid to do personal projects on my own time...

Thank you for your CV, but it is quite clear that you have built your Mindset, if not your career, on a foundation of Victim Mentality and Forty-Acres-and-a-Mule.

...There ain't no such thing as color blind...

True. But there can be Peaceful Coexistence and Mutual Respect and the Exploiting of Commonalities.

..., and there won't be until the damage whites created by 243 years of color conscious society building is fixed.

Your 20th-great-grandchildren should live so long.

Wake us up, when you get the British and Spanish and Portugese and Dutch to agree to chip-in with their fair share of any such Fantasy Reparations.

Not to mention hitting-up the Muslim descendants of the Arab Slave Traders and African Tribes who caught and wholesaled those poor unfortunates, centuries ago.

Get all of them to agree to contribute their own fair share, then strip-out the cost of 600,000 war-dead from the 1860s, and the cash value of 50-60 years of Affirmative Action, and come up with a Reparations Recipient Identifier and Payment Calculator system that those paying the freight can agree upon, and you might actually have a shot at that.

Good luck with that.

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

This is all to say that a great many White Folk in the country don't mind if our Black fellow-citizens grab their own fair share of the pie.

It's just that we're done hand-delivering that slice... it's time to get off 'your' dead a$$ and get it yourselves.

And, of course, these Inequality and Reparations themes appear to be cornerstones of your own existence; you eat, sleep and breathe it.

I hate to break it to you but, beyond your own 'collective', it's not exactly either a regularly-occurring thought nor much of a priority, and quite frankly, that's unlikely to change.

If there is any truth in that, your long-term choices seem to be (a) fight or (b) mainstream.

I have great confidence that the majority of your colleagues will chose (b).

All your bullshit post cannot obscured what your chart shows in spades: Non-whites are routingly and systemically descriminated against such that poverty is higher in every non-white socio-economic group. I know that your aim is to prove that blacks are lazier and thus more likely to be on welfare than any other raciala group.

Instead your chart graphically illustrates that if you're dumb, white and lazy, you're still better off economically than being black, Hispanic, or Asian.

Notice how in times of economic hardship, how the welfare rate increase is double for non-whites than it is for white people. This is proof positive that in hard times, low income blacks, Latinos and Native Americans face greater financial hardship than white people.

You've posted all these conservative talking points on the sources and causes of poverty that still comes down to Republicans blame the poor for an economic system built to keep white people on top, non-whites struggling. This fiction that anybody can make it America is a Republican fairy tale.

In 1980, if you were born poor, you had a 20% chance, through education, hard work, and fiscal prudence, to work your way out of poverty. Today, your chances are less than 2%. Republicans have successfully murdered the American dream that in America everyone has the same chance to succeed.

Oh, boo-hoo and cry-me-a-friggin'-river... life sux... life's unfair... get over it... get past it... get to work on fixing your own problems... stop expecting help from the outside.

 

[IM2]

Kondor,

Your post is the ignorant white racist drivel spoken by every rightwing fake that hijacked the term conservative. I am black so when I say there is no victim mentality in the black community I say that as a fact because I see it. And when I say whites have been given everything by the government I am not talking just about what you call welfare, I am talking about supreme court decisions, and public policies at every level in this nation that denied blacks equal access by written law until 1965 and in some cases, especially in housing policy, still occurs today. 188 years of written apartheid by law allowed whites to get everything you have today. It is why whites have 15 times the wealth of everyone else. I've never committed a crime, or fathered a child out of wedlock. I went to college and graduated twice. O built 3 organizations and won awards for my work. I worked from age 9 and yet I have to hear you racists whites talk your bullshit.

You are ignorant and your post shows that you have no idea of what I am talking about. You’re just online repeating right wing racism thinking that you have an argument. You don’t have the first clue about the extent and length of how the government denied people of color things and allowed whites to have them. You live with a delusion based on the teflon theory of history whereby in your mind when slavery ended, poof the attitudes that created slavery left.

You come with that dumb white racist argument about 600,000 whites dying. But there is this matter of 100 years after slavery that enters into pour lifetimes that not one of you white conservatives are man or woman enough to discuss. Because blacks kept dying at the hands of whites after the civil war.

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.


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?

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

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

The white collective began in 1790

“Since 1790, the U.S. has taken a census that divides citizens into racial categories. These categories have transformed dramatically over the past 220 years along with U.S. demography. In 1790, there were three categories: “free whites”, “other free people”, and “slaves.” Over the next few centuries, new groups were added ranging from broad racial categories (“Asian”) to subsets (“Korean”, for example, was added as its own race in 1920, removed in 1950, re-added in 1970, and subsumed into “Asian” in 2000.)”

The race card is used “When somebody tries to use their race or place of origin to gain an advantage over a person or situation.” Whites began playing the race card when America was a British colony. But in 1790 it became official policy and since then America has divided itself by race using the census. Pretending that anything has been different is untrue. The old dumb claim of that was long ago, doesn't flush either.

“The most recent census, taken in 2010, divided Americans as follows: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or Some Other Race. In 1980, as a result of a huge increase in the Hispanic population, ‘Hispanic’ (or Latino, often the preferred term) was added as its own category, with a note that it is an ethnicity, not a race.”

I will say this more than once, the grievance blacks have with America left slavery as the sole issue pretty much the day after blacks were informed of emancipation. We were freed from slavery even though we received no compensatory repair for the economic damages caused. Today’s grievances include not just slavery, but the 100 years after emancipation as well as modern forms of racism. Simply put, oppression of blacks did not end after slavery. Dr. Carol Anderson points this out in great detail in her book, “White Rage.”

Bu bu bu but, the irish....

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

Liam Hogan
​

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

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

Liam Hogan​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Polish had a similar experience. As you read the next few paragraphs, you will see a pattern that has been used in modern America against another group of immigrants. “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

“Here it is important to understand how, exactly, Americans ‘become white’. The history of Polish-Americans is an illuminating example. Upon arriving in the U.S. en masse in the late 19th and early 20th century, Poles endured discrimination based on their appearance, religion and culture. In 1903, the New England Magazine decried the Poles’ “expressionless Slavic faces” and “stunted figures” as well as their inherent “ignorance” and “propensity to violence”. Working for terrible wages, Polish workers were renamed things like “Thomas Jefferson” by their bigoted Anglo-Saxon bosses who refused to utter Polish names.

The Poles, in other words, were not considered white. Far from it: they were considered a mysterious menace that should be expelled. When Polish-American Leon Czolgosz killed President William McKinley in 1901, all Poles were deemed potential violent anarchists. “All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote, pressured to apologize for their own people. The collective blame of Poles for terrorism bears great similarity to how Muslims (both in the U.S. and Europe) are collectively blamed today.

But then something changed. In 1919, Irish gangs in blackface attacked Polish neighborhoods in Chicago in an attempt to convince Poles, and other Eastern European groups, that they, too, were “white” and should join them in the fight against blacks. As historian David R. Roediger recalls, “Poles argued that the riot was a conflict between blacks and whites, with Poles abstaining because they belonged to neither group.” But the Irish gangs considered whiteness, as is often the case in America, as anti-blackness. And as in the early 20th century Chicago experienced an influx not only of white immigrants from Europe, but blacks from the South, white groups who felt threatened by black arrivals decided that it would be politically advantageous if the Poles were considered white as well.

With that new white identity came the ability to practice the discrimination they had once endured.

Over time, the strategy of positioning Poles as “white” against a dark-skinned “other” was successful. Poles came to consider themselves white, and more importantly, they came to be considered white by their fellow Americans, as did Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and others from Southern and Eastern Europe, all of whom held an ambivalent racial status in U.S. society. Also, intermarriage between white ethnic groups led some to embrace a broader white identity.”

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

In both instances these groups of whites stepped on blacks when they had the chance to unify with blacks to end the oppression of both sides in order to advance themselves. What we are looking at here is literally white privilege.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.C. Franklin​

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

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

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

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

When I say facts, I can bring them. Whites have nothing because of anything superior but the will to deceive. You don't have the first clue of what's been done and you ain't going to get it at stormfront. The white mans opinion of victim as stated today tries to dismiss the greatness from which we came. We are survivors. We descend from people who endured one of the greatest atrocities in human history and have come out the back end so strong that there are whites doing their level best to divide us by filling the heads of blacks who apparently have little common sense full of garbage. We are powerful because of the very past whites like you tell us to forget. We are here because of the strength of those before us. The victims of crimes who did not quit fighting the criminals. They fought to the death. And that's the legacy of our people, therefore we are going to fight until hell freezes over and bring you skates if that's not good enough. Because this is going to continue until the return of the lord if whites like you continue to believe the crap you do.

Lerone Bennett, The Shaping of Black America. Chicago: Johnson Publishing Co., 1975, pp. 61-82. Originally published in Ebony, vol. 25 (August, 1970), pp. 71-77).

Liam Hogan, All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19), All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)

Liam Hogan, Irish slaves’: the convenient myth, ‘Irish slaves’: the convenient myth

Eoin O'Carroll, No, the Irish were not slaves in the Americas, Christian Science Monitor, March 16, 2018, No, the Irish were not slaves in the Americas

Art McDonald, Ph.D., How the Irish Became White,

How the Irish Became White

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

Carol Anderson, White Rage, New York, Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.39-66, 2016

"Sherman's Special Field Orders No. 15," in The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol. 47, Part II (Washington: GPO, 1895), pp.60-62. Derived from: 5. General William T. Sherman's Special Field Order No. 15 · After Slavery: Educator Resources · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative

“Circular #13 War Department Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. Washington July 28, 1865,” Source: National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 105, Entry 24, No. 139 Asst Adjutant General Circulars 1865-1869, Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, pp. 14-15. (Transcribed from the original by John Soos, August, 2003)

Chris Wolfgang, Mafiosi and Madams, Omaha Magazine, August 29, 2013, https://omahamagazine.com/articles/tag/edward-parsons-smith/

Dennison’s Political Machine, Dennison’s Political Machine

The Tulsa Race Riots and Three of It’s Victims, B.C Franklin, A Long-Lost Manuscript Contains a Searing Eyewitness Account of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921

 

[Kondor3]

Kondor,

Your post is the ignorant white racist drivel spoken by every rightwing fake that hijacked the term conservative. I am black so when I say there is no victim mentality in the black community I say that as a fact because I see it. And when I say whites have been given everything by the government I am not talking just about what you call welfare, I am talking about supreme court decisions, and public policies at every level in this nation that denied blacks equal access by written law until 1965 and in some cases, especially in housing policy, still occurs today. 188 years of written apartheid by law allowed whites to get everything you have today. It is why whites have 15 times the wealth of everyone else. I've never committed a crime, or fathered a child out of wedlock. I went to college and graduated twice. O built 3 organizations and won awards for my work. I worked from age 9 and yet I have to hear you racists whites talk your bullshit.

You are ignorant and your post shows that you have no idea of what I am talking about. You’re just online repeating right wing racism thinking that you have an argument. You don’t have the first clue about the extent and length of how the government denied people of color things and allowed whites to have them. You live with a delusion based on the teflon theory of history whereby in your mind when slavery ended, poof the attitudes that created slavery left.

You come with that dumb white racist argument about 600,000 whites dying. But there is this matter of 100 years after slavery that enters into pour lifetimes that not one of you white conservatives are man or woman enough to discuss. Because blacks kept dying at the hands of whites after the civil war.

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.


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?

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

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

The white collective began in 1790

“Since 1790, the U.S. has taken a census that divides citizens into racial categories. These categories have transformed dramatically over the past 220 years along with U.S. demography. In 1790, there were three categories: “free whites”, “other free people”, and “slaves.” Over the next few centuries, new groups were added ranging from broad racial categories (“Asian”) to subsets (“Korean”, for example, was added as its own race in 1920, removed in 1950, re-added in 1970, and subsumed into “Asian” in 2000.)”

The race card is used “When somebody tries to use their race or place of origin to gain an advantage over a person or situation.” Whites began playing the race card when America was a British colony. But in 1790 it became official policy and since then America has divided itself by race using the census. Pretending that anything has been different is untrue. The old dumb claim of that was long ago, doesn't flush either.

“The most recent census, taken in 2010, divided Americans as follows: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or Some Other Race. In 1980, as a result of a huge increase in the Hispanic population, ‘Hispanic’ (or Latino, often the preferred term) was added as its own category, with a note that it is an ethnicity, not a race.”

I will say this more than once, the grievance blacks have with America left slavery as the sole issue pretty much the day after blacks were informed of emancipation. We were freed from slavery even though we received no compensatory repair for the economic damages caused. Today’s grievances include not just slavery, but the 100 years after emancipation as well as modern forms of racism. Simply put, oppression of blacks did not end after slavery. Dr. Carol Anderson points this out in great detail in her book, “White Rage.”

Bu bu bu but, the irish....

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

Liam Hogan
​

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

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

Liam Hogan​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Polish had a similar experience. As you read the next few paragraphs, you will see a pattern that has been used in modern America against another group of immigrants. “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

“Here it is important to understand how, exactly, Americans ‘become white’. The history of Polish-Americans is an illuminating example. Upon arriving in the U.S. en masse in the late 19th and early 20th century, Poles endured discrimination based on their appearance, religion and culture. In 1903, the New England Magazine decried the Poles’ “expressionless Slavic faces” and “stunted figures” as well as their inherent “ignorance” and “propensity to violence”. Working for terrible wages, Polish workers were renamed things like “Thomas Jefferson” by their bigoted Anglo-Saxon bosses who refused to utter Polish names.

The Poles, in other words, were not considered white. Far from it: they were considered a mysterious menace that should be expelled. When Polish-American Leon Czolgosz killed President William McKinley in 1901, all Poles were deemed potential violent anarchists. “All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote, pressured to apologize for their own people. The collective blame of Poles for terrorism bears great similarity to how Muslims (both in the U.S. and Europe) are collectively blamed today.

But then something changed. In 1919, Irish gangs in blackface attacked Polish neighborhoods in Chicago in an attempt to convince Poles, and other Eastern European groups, that they, too, were “white” and should join them in the fight against blacks. As historian David R. Roediger recalls, “Poles argued that the riot was a conflict between blacks and whites, with Poles abstaining because they belonged to neither group.” But the Irish gangs considered whiteness, as is often the case in America, as anti-blackness. And as in the early 20th century Chicago experienced an influx not only of white immigrants from Europe, but blacks from the South, white groups who felt threatened by black arrivals decided that it would be politically advantageous if the Poles were considered white as well.

With that new white identity came the ability to practice the discrimination they had once endured.

Over time, the strategy of positioning Poles as “white” against a dark-skinned “other” was successful. Poles came to consider themselves white, and more importantly, they came to be considered white by their fellow Americans, as did Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and others from Southern and Eastern Europe, all of whom held an ambivalent racial status in U.S. society. Also, intermarriage between white ethnic groups led some to embrace a broader white identity.”

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

In both instances these groups of whites stepped on blacks when they had the chance to unify with blacks to end the oppression of both sides in order to advance themselves. What we are looking at here is literally white privilege.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.C. Franklin​

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

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

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

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

When I say facts, I can bring them. Whites have nothing because of anything superior but the will to deceive. You don't have the first clue of what's been done and you ain't going to get it at stormfront. The white mans opinion of victim as stated today tries to dismiss the greatness from which we came. We are survivors. We descend from people who endured one of the greatest atrocities in human history and have come out the back end so strong that there are whites doing their level best to divide us by filling the heads of blacks who apparently have little common sense full of garbage. We are powerful because of the very past whites like you tell us to forget. We are here because of the strength of those before us. The victims of crimes who did not quit fighting the criminals. They fought to the death. And that's the legacy of our people, therefore we are going to fight until hell freezes over and bring you skates if that's not good enough. Because this is going to continue until the return of the lord if whites like you continue to believe the crap you do.

Lerone Bennett, The Shaping of Black America. Chicago: Johnson Publishing Co., 1975, pp. 61-82. Originally published in Ebony, vol. 25 (August, 1970), pp. 71-77).

Liam Hogan, All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19), All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)

Liam Hogan, Irish slaves’: the convenient myth, ‘Irish slaves’: the convenient myth

Eoin O'Carroll, No, the Irish were not slaves in the Americas, Christian Science Monitor, March 16, 2018, No, the Irish were not slaves in the Americas

Art McDonald, Ph.D., How the Irish Became White,

How the Irish Became White

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

Carol Anderson, White Rage, New York, Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.39-66, 2016

"Sherman's Special Field Orders No. 15," in The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol. 47, Part II (Washington: GPO, 1895), pp.60-62. Derived from: 5. General William T. Sherman's Special Field Order No. 15 · After Slavery: Educator Resources · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative

“Circular #13 War Department Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. Washington July 28, 1865,” Source: National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 105, Entry 24, No. 139 Asst Adjutant General Circulars 1865-1869, Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, pp. 14-15. (Transcribed from the original by John Soos, August, 2003)

Chris Wolfgang, Mafiosi and Madams, Omaha Magazine, August 29, 2013, https://omahamagazine.com/articles/tag/edward-parsons-smith/

Dennison’s Political Machine, Dennison’s Political Machine

The Tulsa Race Riots and Three of It’s Victims, B.C Franklin, A Long-Lost Manuscript Contains a Searing Eyewitness Account of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921

A fine example of Black Victim Mentality In Extremis, complete with self-serving attempts at justification and other juicy rationalizations.

Fine entertainment on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[WillowTree]

This is 2020. Right?

 

[IM2]

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.

www.washingtontimes.com

This does not sound like a stunning success to me!

Did you look at the unemployment statistics during the same time frame, or any economic indicator at all? It is in fact a success, because it put cash assistance into the pockets of needy Americans at a time when the whole country was hurting economically. Something that the right hates with a white hot rage. Giving cash to the poor.
The right will give billions to corporations to distribute to the shareholders, but not one thin dime to the people hurt most by their economic stupidity.

It took cash from working Americcans and gave it to those who did not work. Why would I look at the unemployment stats when the liberals assure us Obummet’s economy was an unmitigated success? The question is if it was so successful why did food stamp usage skyrocket? Got it now dumbass?

Food stamps skyrocketed and stay skyrocketed because of Boosh LOL. All things bad- Bush, Trump. All things good that Bush and Trump did - Obama. Obama’s level of accountability: 0.

The economy was dead when Obama took over, the food stamps came as a result of that.

But they didn’t go down during his term dumb ass they rose by 70%.

Prestigious Study PROVES That Republicans Hold Blame For Sluggish Economy (STATS)

However, a new study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that it was GOP obstructionism, not any policy failure by the Obama administration, that is responsible for the slowing-down of economic recovery. According to the report, the stall can be directly attributed to:

‘THE LACKLUSTER PACE OF RECOVERY ON REPUBLICAN-LED BUDGET CUTS IN 2011 FOLLOWING THE ROW OVER THE US DEBT CEILING, THE UNWILLINGNESS OF LOCAL OFFICIALS TO SPEND MONEY WHEN REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WERE ADVOCATING CUTS IN SPENDING, AND THE REFUSAL TO EXPAND MEDICAID IN 19 STATES.’

Because GOP elected officials obstructed any spending that would aid in the recovery of the economy, they are now able to blame President Obama for the slow growth of economic recovery. Never mind the fact that the country is no longer in an economic freefall after President Obama and a Democratic-led Congress rescued the auto industry, reduced unemployment down to just 5 percent, shrunk the size of the deficit, and increased the GDP.

Prestigious Study PROVES That Republicans Hold Blame For Sluggish Economy (STATS)

Donald Trump loves to say that the country's currently slow economic recovery is the fault of President Obama, but who's really to blame?

bipartisanreport.com

 

[LeftofLeft]

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.

www.washingtontimes.com

This does not sound like a stunning success to me!

Did you look at the unemployment statistics during the same time frame, or any economic indicator at all? It is in fact a success, because it put cash assistance into the pockets of needy Americans at a time when the whole country was hurting economically. Something that the right hates with a white hot rage. Giving cash to the poor.
The right will give billions to corporations to distribute to the shareholders, but not one thin dime to the people hurt most by their economic stupidity.

It took cash from working Americcans and gave it to those who did not work. Why would I look at the unemployment stats when the liberals assure us Obummet’s economy was an unmitigated success? The question is if it was so successful why did food stamp usage skyrocket? Got it now dumbass?

Food stamps skyrocketed and stay skyrocketed because of Boosh LOL. All things bad- Bush, Trump. All things good that Bush and Trump did - Obama. Obama’s level of accountability: 0.

The economy was dead when Obama took over, the food stamps came as a result of that.

No question Obama inherited a poor economy just like Bush and Clinton did. Bad economies impact all Presidents at different times of their term(s). I judge a President on the policies they pursue to expedite recovery. Expeditious economic recovery was not a priority for Obama. Blaming Bush was easier to free him up to pursue policies that rewarded friends first such as healthcare and environmentalist corporate cronies.

From an economic policy perspective, what specific policies did Obama pursue that empirically resulted in a positive impact for the US economy? Blaming Bush and Trump are not policies....

 

[IM2]

Kondor,

Your post is the ignorant white racist drivel spoken by every rightwing fake that hijacked the term conservative. I am black so when I say there is no victim mentality in the black community I say that as a fact because I see it. And when I say whites have been given everything by the government I am not talking just about what you call welfare, I am talking about supreme court decisions, and public policies at every level in this nation that denied blacks equal access by written law until 1965 and in some cases, especially in housing policy, still occurs today. 188 years of written apartheid by law allowed whites to get everything you have today. It is why whites have 15 times the wealth of everyone else. I've never committed a crime, or fathered a child out of wedlock. I went to college and graduated twice. O built 3 organizations and won awards for my work. I worked from age 9 and yet I have to hear you racists whites talk your bullshit.

You are ignorant and your post shows that you have no idea of what I am talking about. You’re just online repeating right wing racism thinking that you have an argument. You don’t have the first clue about the extent and length of how the government denied people of color things and allowed whites to have them. You live with a delusion based on the teflon theory of history whereby in your mind when slavery ended, poof the attitudes that created slavery left.

You come with that dumb white racist argument about 600,000 whites dying. But there is this matter of 100 years after slavery that enters into pour lifetimes that not one of you white conservatives are man or woman enough to discuss. Because blacks kept dying at the hands of whites after the civil war.

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.


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?

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

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

The white collective began in 1790

“Since 1790, the U.S. has taken a census that divides citizens into racial categories. These categories have transformed dramatically over the past 220 years along with U.S. demography. In 1790, there were three categories: “free whites”, “other free people”, and “slaves.” Over the next few centuries, new groups were added ranging from broad racial categories (“Asian”) to subsets (“Korean”, for example, was added as its own race in 1920, removed in 1950, re-added in 1970, and subsumed into “Asian” in 2000.)”

The race card is used “When somebody tries to use their race or place of origin to gain an advantage over a person or situation.” Whites began playing the race card when America was a British colony. But in 1790 it became official policy and since then America has divided itself by race using the census. Pretending that anything has been different is untrue. The old dumb claim of that was long ago, doesn't flush either.

“The most recent census, taken in 2010, divided Americans as follows: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or Some Other Race. In 1980, as a result of a huge increase in the Hispanic population, ‘Hispanic’ (or Latino, often the preferred term) was added as its own category, with a note that it is an ethnicity, not a race.”

I will say this more than once, the grievance blacks have with America left slavery as the sole issue pretty much the day after blacks were informed of emancipation. We were freed from slavery even though we received no compensatory repair for the economic damages caused. Today’s grievances include not just slavery, but the 100 years after emancipation as well as modern forms of racism. Simply put, oppression of blacks did not end after slavery. Dr. Carol Anderson points this out in great detail in her book, “White Rage.”

Bu bu bu but, the irish....

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

Liam Hogan
​

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

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

Liam Hogan​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Polish had a similar experience. As you read the next few paragraphs, you will see a pattern that has been used in modern America against another group of immigrants. “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

“Here it is important to understand how, exactly, Americans ‘become white’. The history of Polish-Americans is an illuminating example. Upon arriving in the U.S. en masse in the late 19th and early 20th century, Poles endured discrimination based on their appearance, religion and culture. In 1903, the New England Magazine decried the Poles’ “expressionless Slavic faces” and “stunted figures” as well as their inherent “ignorance” and “propensity to violence”. Working for terrible wages, Polish workers were renamed things like “Thomas Jefferson” by their bigoted Anglo-Saxon bosses who refused to utter Polish names.

The Poles, in other words, were not considered white. Far from it: they were considered a mysterious menace that should be expelled. When Polish-American Leon Czolgosz killed President William McKinley in 1901, all Poles were deemed potential violent anarchists. “All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote, pressured to apologize for their own people. The collective blame of Poles for terrorism bears great similarity to how Muslims (both in the U.S. and Europe) are collectively blamed today.

But then something changed. In 1919, Irish gangs in blackface attacked Polish neighborhoods in Chicago in an attempt to convince Poles, and other Eastern European groups, that they, too, were “white” and should join them in the fight against blacks. As historian David R. Roediger recalls, “Poles argued that the riot was a conflict between blacks and whites, with Poles abstaining because they belonged to neither group.” But the Irish gangs considered whiteness, as is often the case in America, as anti-blackness. And as in the early 20th century Chicago experienced an influx not only of white immigrants from Europe, but blacks from the South, white groups who felt threatened by black arrivals decided that it would be politically advantageous if the Poles were considered white as well.

With that new white identity came the ability to practice the discrimination they had once endured.

Over time, the strategy of positioning Poles as “white” against a dark-skinned “other” was successful. Poles came to consider themselves white, and more importantly, they came to be considered white by their fellow Americans, as did Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and others from Southern and Eastern Europe, all of whom held an ambivalent racial status in U.S. society. Also, intermarriage between white ethnic groups led some to embrace a broader white identity.”

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

In both instances these groups of whites stepped on blacks when they had the chance to unify with blacks to end the oppression of both sides in order to advance themselves. What we are looking at here is literally white privilege.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.C. Franklin​

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

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

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

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

When I say facts, I can bring them. Whites have nothing because of anything superior but the will to deceive. You don't have the first clue of what's been done and you ain't going to get it at stormfront. The white mans opinion of victim as stated today tries to dismiss the greatness from which we came. We are survivors. We descend from people who endured one of the greatest atrocities in human history and have come out the back end so strong that there are whites doing their level best to divide us by filling the heads of blacks who apparently have little common sense full of garbage. We are powerful because of the very past whites like you tell us to forget. We are here because of the strength of those before us. The victims of crimes who did not quit fighting the criminals. They fought to the death. And that's the legacy of our people, therefore we are going to fight until hell freezes over and bring you skates if that's not good enough. Because this is going to continue until the return of the lord if whites like you continue to believe the crap you do.

Lerone Bennett, The Shaping of Black America. Chicago: Johnson Publishing Co., 1975, pp. 61-82. Originally published in Ebony, vol. 25 (August, 1970), pp. 71-77).

Liam Hogan, All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19), All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)

Liam Hogan, Irish slaves’: the convenient myth, ‘Irish slaves’: the convenient myth

Eoin O'Carroll, No, the Irish were not slaves in the Americas, Christian Science Monitor, March 16, 2018, No, the Irish were not slaves in the Americas

Art McDonald, Ph.D., How the Irish Became White,

How the Irish Became White

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

Carol Anderson, White Rage, New York, Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.39-66, 2016

"Sherman's Special Field Orders No. 15," in The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol. 47, Part II (Washington: GPO, 1895), pp.60-62. Derived from: 5. General William T. Sherman's Special Field Order No. 15 · After Slavery: Educator Resources · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative

“Circular #13 War Department Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. Washington July 28, 1865,” Source: National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 105, Entry 24, No. 139 Asst Adjutant General Circulars 1865-1869, Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, pp. 14-15. (Transcribed from the original by John Soos, August, 2003)

Chris Wolfgang, Mafiosi and Madams, Omaha Magazine, August 29, 2013, https://omahamagazine.com/articles/tag/edward-parsons-smith/

Dennison’s Political Machine, Dennison’s Political Machine

The Tulsa Race Riots and Three of It’s Victims, B.C Franklin, A Long-Lost Manuscript Contains a Searing Eyewitness Account of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921

A fine example of Black Victim Mentality In Extremis, complete with self-serving attempts at justification and other juicy rationalizations.

Fine entertainment on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Thanks for the laughs.

The standard white racist response when they can offer a rebuttal to the facts presented.

 

[Kondor3]

...Facts, not a victim mindset...

You declaring something a 'fact' does not render it thus. The 'victim mindset' within your 'collective' is alive and well and holding 'you' back.

...

Not only is the legislated unfairness not dead...

Oh, please, enlighten us, with a substantive example of such 'legislative unfairness' that is (a) still extant and (b) still operative and still being enforced, on a scale large enough to be statistically significant on a nationwide basis.

...the damage created by past deeds has not been fixed...

And never, ever will be. It's what happens when Advanced Technology Civilizations meet Stone-Age Nomadic and Hunter-Gatherer primitive cultures.

White American paid for slavery in-full when it lost 600,000+ war-dead in a four-year-long Civil War to abolish slavery, as well as to preserve the Union.

And it paid for 100 years of Jim Crow with 50-60 years of Affirmative Action in government service, the military, prep-school and college admissions, and large corporations.

Your own collective failure to take full advantage of such accommodations is not the fault of White America nor the Federal nor State governments who provided that leg-up.

...There is no such thing as a victim mindset in the black community...

Rubbish... you, yourself, are a classic example of just that.

...The use of that term is common among whites like you who try racial gaslighting...

Truth-telling and the articulation of honest and widespread opinion does not constitute 'gaslighting'... attempted deflection noted... ignored.

...It's crazy talk because there is no such thing as political correctness...

1. No such thing? You are as wrong as wrong can be.

2. the presence or absence of 'politically correct filters' does not prove nor disprove the truthfulness or rationality of an argument

...We don't hold a majority in many major cities...

Yes and No. The White Vote is honestly split between two parties. The Black Vote is nearly monolithic in favor of the Party of Freebies (D).

When you halve the White Vote, the monolithic Black Vote oftentimes dominates, politically.

...Hispanics face the same racism...

Not really. They look and act more like White Folk. They are more readily recognized as hard workers and independent thinkers. They face bias, but not like Black Folk.,

...and when you talk about collective, it shows that you have released yourself from the reality of the 243 years of the white collective you have been part of your entire life...

Wrong again. I value my membership in that broader tribe. I do not apologize for it. Why-in-the-world should I?

...Everything whites have the givernment gave it to you...

You are delusional in this matter

...You talk about government social services and whites are the ones that have made a lifestyle out of it. It's been an American tradition...

Oh, really?

There is no doubt that more White Americans are on Welfare than there are Black Americans on Welfare.

Predictable, given that Whites represent some 72-77% of the US population and that Blacks only represent 12% .

No... what's REALLY "telling" is the PERCENTAGE of each group that is on Welfare, as may be illustrated by the following government statistics in a 30-year study...

View attachment 337420
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026/tables/table_32.asp

And, beyond sheer and damning percentages, we also need to look at the percentage within each demographic that REMAIN on welfare for extended periods of time, and also factor-in 'recidivism'.

Sorry... even a cursory glance beyond the simple-simon Raw Numbers you like to tout serves to expose the foolhardiness of relying solely upon such figures.

In any in-depth examination, 'you' are going to lose such an argument every time.

...Like I said, you're talking crazy...

You declaring it thus does not render it thus.

...And your perspective isn't really all that common...

Feel free to continue deluding yourself with that counterargument.

The truth is, most White Folk are far too busy living life... raising families, shaping careers, taking care of their homes, etc... to worry about you-and-yours overly much.

And that goes for many Democrats as well as Republicans. One main difference between the two is how much loose change they're willing to throw at your tribe.

But, once the debate cools down, both go back to their far safer suburbs and high-end stores and schools and go on with their own lives and do not give you a second thought.

In the case of the Democrats, not even a first thought, except to keep you on the hook for another four years until they need you again, and you fall for it, every time.

...but it is enough of a problem that it needs to end...

Of course. And one day the Lions and Lambs will lie down together and there will be Peace in the Valley.

Overall... occasional spikes in racial turmoil not withstanding... race relations have been getting better with each passing year since the 1960s. Most of us are content that it be so.

But when you pi$$ and moan over 40-acres-and-a-mule (metaphorically speaking) and tell us that we have to change our way of thinking, then you've got a hard row to hoe.

You lack the resources and muscle to force the issue, and legislation and education only takes us so far towards any such lofty goal.

It is far more realistic to strive for Peaceful Coexistence and Mutual Respect and Exploiting Commonalities than it is to continue pressing past Donor Exhaustion for more freebies.

...Nope, they are the types who seek approval from whites so badly that they will allow themselves to be degraded and used by whites to their disadvantage...

[
Some are.

Most aren't.

When I see a Black professional or tradesman, I (and most White Folk) see a professional or tradesman first, and skin-color second.

...I am not a black conservative, built 3 organizations and retired young enough to where today I get paid to do personal projects on my own time...

Thank you for your CV, but it is quite clear that you have built your Mindset, if not your career, on a foundation of Victim Mentality and Forty-Acres-and-a-Mule.

...There ain't no such thing as color blind...

True. But there can be Peaceful Coexistence and Mutual Respect and the Exploiting of Commonalities.

..., and there won't be until the damage whites created by 243 years of color conscious society building is fixed.

Your 20th-great-grandchildren should live so long.

Wake us up, when you get the British and Spanish and Portugese and Dutch to agree to chip-in with their fair share of any such Fantasy Reparations.

Not to mention hitting-up the Muslim descendants of the Arab Slave Traders and African Tribes who caught and wholesaled those poor unfortunates, centuries ago.

Get all of them to agree to contribute their own fair share, then strip-out the cost of 600,000 war-dead from the 1860s, and the cash value of 50-60 years of Affirmative Action, and come up with a Reparations Recipient Identifier and Payment Calculator system that those paying the freight can agree upon, and you might actually have a shot at that.

Good luck with that.

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

This is all to say that a great many White Folk in the country don't mind if our Black fellow-citizens grab their own fair share of the pie.

It's just that we're done hand-delivering that slice... it's time to get off 'your' dead a$$ and get it yourselves.

And, of course, these Inequality and Reparations themes appear to be cornerstones of your own existence; you eat, sleep and breathe it.

I hate to break it to you but, beyond your own 'collective', it's not exactly either a regularly-occurring thought nor much of a priority, and quite frankly, that's unlikely to change.

If there is any truth in that, your long-term choices seem to be (a) fight or (b) mainstream.

I have great confidence that the majority of your colleagues will chose (b).

All your bullshit post cannot obscured what your chart shows in spades: Non-whites are routingly and systemically descriminated against such that poverty is higher in every non-white socio-economic group. I know that your aim is to prove that blacks are lazier and thus more likely to be on welfare than any other raciala group.

Instead your chart graphically illustrates that if you're dumb, white and lazy, you're still better off economically than being black, Hispanic, or Asian.

Notice how in times of economic hardship, how the welfare rate increase is double for non-whites than it is for white people. This is proof positive that in hard times, low income blacks, Latinos and Native Americans face greater financial hardship than white people.

You've posted all these conservative talking points on the sources and causes of poverty that still comes down to Republicans blame the poor for an economic system built to keep white people on top, non-whites struggling. This fiction that anybody can make it America is a Republican fairy tale.

In 1980, if you were born poor, you had a 20% chance, through education, hard work, and fiscal prudence, to work your way out of poverty. Today, your chances are less than 2%. Republicans have successfully murdered the American dream that in America everyone has the same chance to succeed.

Excuses, excuses, excuses... threadbare, tattered, worn ones, no less... enough of the excuses and bull$hit... very few are listening anymore.