Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You keep talking about older blacks being denied jobs long ago, because they were black, while ignoring whites being denied jobs because they're white, right NOW.FALSE! SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University ONLY blacks received assistantships. 2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its 'anti-WHITE' discriminatory nature. As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will. I could not degrade myself that way. It is something for people with no self-respect.
When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?
Way back never. And do you ever remember being offered AA and a job? It's illegal for an employer to say you were hired because of race. That fool really needs to quit lying.
True. I guess if a person repeats a lie enough to themselves it becomes their reality.
I never got any job because of being black, I was at the company that I retired from long enough to go from being 1 of 2 blacks in my entire division covering 6 states, to seeing more minority hires over time but the majority of them in later years were middle easterners and Pakistanis, which was fine, and I interviewed and made decisions to hire some of them myself.
But I can assure you that I have living older relatives and friends who were denied quite a few jobs, because they were.
There are many men and women who are employed who laugh and mock others. Others who may had an issue or two. And others who in the tapestry of their lives have/had done much more then the ones who mocked them in the fields of work they were/are in. We have Miles and Miles to go. To many people who screw with others when empowered and to many people believing in the tripe of the empowered. True heroes in everything we do in life are many times buried under the ones glamorized. We see it every day.The problem is that your "speaking out against," is always ad hominem attacks, and does not parse the arguments with reasoned counter arguments. You are typical of the black people on the internet in that you have learned a few all-purpose shut-down comments that you think mean you win the argument.My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?Agreed. Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
You aren't getting anywhere - no white person is changing their mind about the intelligence of black people, because of your participation here. You are the typical stupid black that needs to be banned for trolling.
You can't handle the truth.
Are you crazy ? How would I benefit from Jim Crow ? It ended when AA began in 1961. I was 15 years old.None of that is relevant to 2020. Jim Crow and slavery no longer exist. Affirmative Action does.Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application. You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right? You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position. Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly. If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably? Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum. That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect. All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications. You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.
What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?
Even YOU should know that.
Who said a single word about slavery? As far as Jim Crow,
you are nuts if you believe that there was no lingering impact
of Crow on people who are still living that were subjected to i
to it. Just as some living people in your age group benefitted from it's practice.
Even if I had been older, I don't see how I could have benefitted from J Crow. That idea is downright weird.
As you can see, protectionist believes in Teflon History. For him, jim crow just magically disappeared when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. But here he is arguing the exact same argument jim crow whites argued against affirmative action.Are you crazy ? How would I benefit from Jim Crow ? It ended when AA began in 1961. I was 15 years old.None of that is relevant to 2020. Jim Crow and slavery no longer exist. Affirmative Action does.Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.
Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum. That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect. All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications. You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.
What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?
Even YOU should know that.
Who said a single word about slavery? As far as Jim Crow,
you are nuts if you believe that there was no lingering impact
of Crow on people who are still living that were subjected to i
to it. Just as some living people in your age group benefitted from it's practice.
Even if I had been older, I don't see how I could have benefitted from J Crow. That idea is downright weird.
How would you benefit?
Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are affected by it"
So, "the sons and daughters of victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well.
And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
And no, I'm not "crazy" YOU are.
As you can see, protectionist believes in Teflon History. For him, jim crow just magically disappeared when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. But here he is arguing the exact same argument jim crow whites argued against affirmative action.Are you crazy ? How would I benefit from Jim Crow ? It ended when AA began in 1961. I was 15 years old.None of that is relevant to 2020. Jim Crow and slavery no longer exist. Affirmative Action does.AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.
What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?
Even YOU should know that.
Who said a single word about slavery? As far as Jim Crow,
you are nuts if you believe that there was no lingering impact
of Crow on people who are still living that were subjected to i
to it. Just as some living people in your age group benefitted from it's practice.
Even if I had been older, I don't see how I could have benefitted from J Crow. That idea is downright weird.
How would you benefit?
Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are affected by it"
So, "the sons and daughters of victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well.
And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
And no, I'm not "crazy" YOU are.
You don't know what racism is.Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
No better than him.
You aren't racist against whites? All anyone has to do is disagree with you and they become Hitler incarnate. Dude, you're the most racist individual I've ever come across and I knew people like Hosea Williams, Al Sharpton, David Duke, Tom Metzger and many others PERSONALLY (like sit at the table and argue this stuff face to face personally.) NONE of them could hold a candle to you.
You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
None of those countries you've mentioned are white so why did you mention them instead of nations that are predominantly white? I don't see any connection between your first statement and purchasing products from other countries as it pertains to white supremacy.1) I do not consider myself a white supremacist and only an idiot would. As I've pointed out China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Zimbabwe - and maybe a dozen or so other countries are homogeneous countries. NONE of you pretending to be concerned about white supremacists give a rat's ass about that. You will buy products from those countries and never give them a second thought
The 14th amendment was passed to rectify the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court. Even though the slaves had been freed they had no legal rights as this decision ruled that as people of African descent they could not be citizens2) IF you had faithfully studied my objections to the 14th Amendment, you would understand by now that the 14th Amendment promised a false kind of forced "equality" between the races.
When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 —150 years ago this Monday — it closed the door on schemes that aimed to make the U.S. a white man’s country. It was a victory that was a long time coming.
The ratification of the 14th Amendment in July 1868 transformed national belonging, and made African Americans, and indeed all those born on U.S. soil, citizens. Isaiah Wears, a veteran of the abolitionist movement, explained shortly after its passage the rights that he and other African Americans expected to thus enjoy: not only the right to vote and to select representatives, but also “the right of residence.”
The right of residence — to remain unmolested in the territory of the nation — was urgent in Wears’ view. How was it that a right that today many Americans take for granted was so urgently sought in 1868? Black Americans had lived for nearly half a century in a legal limbo. No law defined the rights of people who were no longer slaves. Freedom did not guarantee rights, nor it did not make them citizens. Caught in a debate over their status, they lived under the threat of colonization, a scheme that sought to remove them from the nation.
By the 1820s, the forces against them were formidable. Colonization societies organized to pressure black people to relocate, to Africa, Canada or the Caribbean. So-called black laws imposed restrictions on daily life, regulating work, family and sociability. The overall objective was removal — or what was variably termed self-deportation, exile or banishment. Black political leaders explained in 1831 they were under threat “by every artifice to render their situation intolerable here, as to compel them to emigrate.” Many state legislatures, north and south, were at work making the U.S. a place where black people had no future.
Removal relied upon coercion. Oppressive laws aimed to pressure African Americans to resettle elsewhere. Some lawmakers went further and proposed removal by force, threatening former slaves with re-enslavement and compulsory exile if they refused to relocate. Such was the case in 1832 Maryland when legislator Octavius Taney, brother of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, proposed a statute that would “facilitate the removal of the free persons of color from our state, and from the United States.” Taney assumed that black people were not citizens, and thus without rights to resist removal.
You may unsubscribe from email communication at any time. See our Privacy Policy for further details.
African Americans took such threats seriously, and with good reason. Proposals for their removal looked a lot like the Indian Removal of the 1830s. Black activists understood that tens of thousands of Native Americans had been forcibly relocated from the southeastern U.S., sent west to Indian Territory. During an 1831 convention, they explained how proponents of colonization stood “in the same attitude toward our colored population, as Georgia does to the Cherokee.” If state authorities could relocate Native peoples, the fate of black Americans might very well be the same.
Court rulings only added to a sense of urgency. Most notoriously, the 1857 Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford had declared that no black person could be a citizen of the U.S. At stake was Dred Scott’s freedom and whether he could sue for it in a federal court. He could not, Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded. But Taney went further, holding that the Constitution included no protections for free African Americans, thus leaving the individual states at liberty to regulate such people as they saw fit. This gave further license to removal schemes, forced and otherwise.
But on one point black activists agreed: They were citizens, as a matter of birthright.
At the 1855 National Colored Convention, delegates gathered as “American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.” They insisted upon birthright: “By birth, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are citizens.” This refrain was repeated, in conventions, in the black press and in pamphlets. Black activists promoted birthright as the standard by which their belonging should be measured.
Dramatic events made it possible for birthright to gain a full hearing. The Civil War and the emancipation of some four million slaves moved the issue to center stage in Congress. There, lawmakers worked with a long view in mind, asking who African Americans would be before the Constitution going forward. The first answer came in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Birthright citizenship became law.
More, however, was necessary. Some worried that a mere act of Congress was vulnerable to future lawmakers who might rethink the question and amend the law. Others opined that Congress might not have the authority to define citizenship at all. The remedy for these uncertainties was a constitutional amendment, proposed by Congress and ratified by the individual states that provided for birthright citizenship. The result was section 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in July 1868 and guaranteeing to black Americans — and all people born or naturalized in the United States — the constitutional protection against removal.
Just months later, in January 1869, Isaiah Wears spoke on behalf of African American political leaders from across the country, heralding the advent of an era in which the “right to residence” would be protected. There were many struggles ahead for black Americans over civil and political rights. But one matter was settled. Gone were schemes that proposed to force their removal from the nation.
African American struggles of the 1800s bequeathed to those born in the 21st century the basis for the right to be free from removal, exile or banishment. The terms of the very same 14th Amendment are also today the subject of a new debate, one that asks whether birthright doesn’t too generously extend citizenship to all those born in the U.S. This pre-history of the Amendment reveals how, in the 19th century, when citizenship was loosely defined, racism could determine who enjoyed constitutional rights. Thousands of black Americans were left to live under an
ever-present threat of removal. The story of their fight for the “right to residence” is a cautionary tale for our own time.
How the 14th Amendment's Promise of Birthright Citizenship Redefined America
Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
No better than him.
You aren't racist against whites? All anyone has to do is disagree with you and they become Hitler incarnate. Dude, you're the most racist individual I've ever come across and I knew people like Hosea Williams, Al Sharpton, David Duke, Tom Metzger and many others PERSONALLY (like sit at the table and argue this stuff face to face personally.) NONE of them could hold a candle to you.
You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
And when they laugh at this, they should pay double.
That's exactly what blacks do, confirmed by their (your) support of Affirmative Action, which is one big, gigantic WHINE/BITCH. Nobody whines and bitches more than blacks (many of them)Your comment above serves as proof of your lack of understanding of how our laws and legal system works. While prior to this ruling the courts had been divided on whether or not ethnic groups were covered by the various civil rights statutes, the Supreme Court settled the question when in it's ruling stipulated that ethnic groups ARE covered. They always had been, going back to when the law was first passed however the question of whether or not they were was unsettled until the Supreme Court weighed in with this ruling.
And it doesn't matter how many things I get wrong, I still get more things right than you ever will if for no other reason than when I fail at something that is important to me, then I keep trying until I get it right or at least improve. Unlike you, who simply gives up and then spends the rest of your life crying, whining and blaming your superiors for your lack of opportunities and miserable existence. I've never seen anyone make so many excuses and blame so many other people for the things that they've been unable to achieve in life.
1. The 14th amendment did not promise birthright citizenship, as the title of your link states. It gave birthright citizenship to the children born here of American citizen parents, and not to the children born here of foreigner parents. Birthright citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, is unconstitutional, and all of it that has been granted should be revoked.The 14th amendment was passed to rectify the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court. Even though the slaves had been freed they had no legal rights as this decision ruled that as people of African descent they could not be citizens
When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 —150 years ago this Monday — it closed the door on schemes that aimed to make the U.S. a white man’s country. It was a victory that was a long time coming.
The ratification of the 14th Amendment in July 1868 transformed national belonging, and made African Americans, and indeed all those born on U.S. soil, citizens. Isaiah Wears, a veteran of the abolitionist movement, explained shortly after its passage the rights that he and other African Americans expected to thus enjoy: not only the right to vote and to select representatives, but also “the right of residence.”
The right of residence — to remain unmolested in the territory of the nation — was urgent in Wears’ view. How was it that a right that today many Americans take for granted was so urgently sought in 1868? Black Americans had lived for nearly half a century in a legal limbo. No law defined the rights of people who were no longer slaves. Freedom did not guarantee rights, nor it did not make them citizens. Caught in a debate over their status, they lived under the threat of colonization, a scheme that sought to remove them from the nation.
By the 1820s, the forces against them were formidable. Colonization societies organized to pressure black people to relocate, to Africa, Canada or the Caribbean. So-called black laws imposed restrictions on daily life, regulating work, family and sociability. The overall objective was removal — or what was variably termed self-deportation, exile or banishment. Black political leaders explained in 1831 they were under threat “by every artifice to render their situation intolerable here, as to compel them to emigrate.” Many state legislatures, north and south, were at work making the U.S. a place where black people had no future.
Removal relied upon coercion. Oppressive laws aimed to pressure African Americans to resettle elsewhere. Some lawmakers went further and proposed removal by force, threatening former slaves with re-enslavement and compulsory exile if they refused to relocate. Such was the case in 1832 Maryland when legislator Octavius Taney, brother of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, proposed a statute that would “facilitate the removal of the free persons of color from our state, and from the United States.” Taney assumed that black people were not citizens, and thus without rights to resist removal.
You may unsubscribe from email communication at any time. See our Privacy Policy for further details.
African Americans took such threats seriously, and with good reason. Proposals for their removal looked a lot like the Indian Removal of the 1830s. Black activists understood that tens of thousands of Native Americans had been forcibly relocated from the southeastern U.S., sent west to Indian Territory. During an 1831 convention, they explained how proponents of colonization stood “in the same attitude toward our colored population, as Georgia does to the Cherokee.” If state authorities could relocate Native peoples, the fate of black Americans might very well be the same.
Court rulings only added to a sense of urgency. Most notoriously, the 1857 Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford had declared that no black person could be a citizen of the U.S. At stake was Dred Scott’s freedom and whether he could sue for it in a federal court. He could not, Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded. But Taney went further, holding that the Constitution included no protections for free African Americans, thus leaving the individual states at liberty to regulate such people as they saw fit. This gave further license to removal schemes, forced and otherwise.
But on one point black activists agreed: They were citizens, as a matter of birthright.
At the 1855 National Colored Convention, delegates gathered as “American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.” They insisted upon birthright: “By birth, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are citizens.” This refrain was repeated, in conventions, in the black press and in pamphlets. Black activists promoted birthright as the standard by which their belonging should be measured.
Dramatic events made it possible for birthright to gain a full hearing. The Civil War and the emancipation of some four million slaves moved the issue to center stage in Congress. There, lawmakers worked with a long view in mind, asking who African Americans would be before the Constitution going forward. The first answer came in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Birthright citizenship became law.
More, however, was necessary. Some worried that a mere act of Congress was vulnerable to future lawmakers who might rethink the question and amend the law. Others opined that Congress might not have the authority to define citizenship at all. The remedy for these uncertainties was a constitutional amendment, proposed by Congress and ratified by the individual states that provided for birthright citizenship. The result was section 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in July 1868 and guaranteeing to black Americans — and all people born or naturalized in the United States — the constitutional protection against removal.
Just months later, in January 1869, Isaiah Wears spoke on behalf of African American political leaders from across the country, heralding the advent of an era in which the “right to residence” would be protected. There were many struggles ahead for black Americans over civil and political rights. But one matter was settled. Gone were schemes that proposed to force their removal from the nation.
African American struggles of the 1800s bequeathed to those born in the 21st century the basis for the right to be free from removal, exile or banishment. The terms of the very same 14th Amendment are also today the subject of a new debate, one that asks whether birthright doesn’t too generously extend citizenship to all those born in the U.S. This pre-history of the Amendment reveals how, in the 19th century, when citizenship was loosely defined, racism could determine who enjoyed constitutional rights. Thousands of black Americans were left to live under an
ever-present threat of removal. The story of their fight for the “right to residence” is a cautionary tale for our own time.
How the 14th Amendment's Promise of Birthright Citizenship Redefined America
Wow, you're stupid and obviously know nothing about working with data or business intelligence. And you all will go to any lengths to discount hard cold facts when they are not in your favor while stretching the thinnest shreds of innuendo or other unsubstantiated nonsense and holding it up as proof.
On the other hand, eyewitness testimony (eyes & ears) is notoriously unreliable. Photographs, audio, video and electronic documentation can all serve to bolster eyewitness or first hand testimony.
My degree is in drafting and design. Autocad, surveying and blueprints. I work in the Civil Engineering field with my degree. Why would I view more black women in my classes as a negative? I am proud of anyone who furthers their education.You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women? Is that something you view as a negative?More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
LOLI thought you were talking about unprotected. MizMolly is a white female. You know, the people who have benefited the most from AA.MizMolly is a man? Had no idea. Still doesn't explain the denial, resentment and bitterness.This man is an idiot. Students pick classes and we all know that.You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women? Is that something you view as a negative?More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it. Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.
Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer. In some respects, it's already been won.
Still pushing that lie. No surprise with someone of your kind of character.MizMolly is a white female. You know, the people who have benefited the most from AA.
Unless you are in your 80s or older, you have not endured racism. You have lived in the Affrimative Action era (1961-2020), and thus you have enjoyed the Black Supremacy policies of this era. It is whites and some women and non-blacks who have endured racism (AA), not you. You've got a lot of nerve to claim you have endured racism.You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
The only thing you illustrate is yourself as a fool >>There is no such thing as a stupid question. Is that how to talk to your music students or all they all white with the same mind set and perspectives as you?
My question was to illustrate that you constantly make statements, without qualifiers, that are patently untrue.
