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.
I don't have to prove it. It is KNOWN, and your lies are laughed at. Please prove that birds can fly.The fact that the blacks you speak of lived during Jim Crow, and are STILL LIVING, and were AFFECTED for life because of Jim Crow is no different.
And department of labor statistics prove that the white population, generally is NOT being denied jobs. And you have yet to prove otherwise.
Nor can you.
Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
And no, I'm not "crazy".
YOU are.
Anyone who argues against AA is correct.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.
And yours ? >> katstupid.Precisely. His name should be "Deflectionist"
White men are not discriminated against.
The United States of America is not a homogeneous society, it never has been. It was established on the premise of white supremacy and during the first 200+ year of it's existence it enforced it's belief in the superiority of the white race and particularly the subservience of the black race by crafting a series of laws, government policies, practices, procedures, standard, societal mores, court rulings, etc. which enforced the original white supremacist beliefs.mentioned Japan, China, North Korea, etc., etc. because those countries are racially homogeneous. Why would I do that? That shows that when we are not talking about the white race, there is nothing wrong or evil with being a homogeneous society.
It provided citizenship to the former slaves and their offspring.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
2. Your entire post is invalid, because it contains the faulty term "African Americans". What you mean is blacks. There are hundreds of people in the US who are "African Americans", who are white.
What is the name of your degree, not what do you do with it.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.
Ever hear of Microsoft? You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?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.
Your wife is going to be really pissed off when she finds out what you've dragged her into.And when they laugh at this, they should pay double.
I dont' have to read, I already know it doesn't contain anything of substance.So if you saw see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, you would agree with a report that says the community is economically healthy, right ? Is this how brain-fried liberals are ?
Wow, are YOU ever stupid. Read my post that you quoted over again. Maybe this time a bit slower. Read it 20 times if necessary. Maybe eventually it will sink in. Only an idiot could disagree with it.
And I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony, you moron.
Your math sucks. The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago. So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation. There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.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.
You really should see someone about your delusions.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.
The United States of America is not a homogeneous society, it never has been. It was established on the premise of white supremacy and during the first 200+ year of it's existence it enforced it's belief in the superiority of the white race and particularly the subservience of the black race by crafting a series of laws, government policies, practices, procedures, standard, societal mores, court rulings, etc. which enforced the original white supremacist beliefs.mentioned Japan, China, North Korea, etc., etc. because those countries are racially homogeneous. Why would I do that? That shows that when we are not talking about the white race, there is nothing wrong or evil with being a homogeneous society.
As far as the rest of your comment, your legal analysis sucks as much as protectionists's, not to be rude (to you). Neither of you seem to understand the difference between "this is what and how I believe things should be" and "this is how they are". In your opinion, the 14th amendment was unlawfully ratified. The fact that other people hold that opinion as well has no effect on reality since as of today, the 14th amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and there are very few options that can be used to remove it but you all are certainly within your rights to try.
Honestly, from the outside looking in, it appears that your beef with the 14th amendment is nothing more than the fact that it provided citizenship status to people of African descent which is why I believe you keep going back to the "America was founded by whites for whites" declaration. The birthright citizenship that is sometimes exploited not withstanding, it was a good thing for me and my ancestors and detracted nothing from whites. Unless we're back to the resentment about having to share again?
It provided citizenship to the former slaves and their offspring.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
2. Your entire post is invalid, because it contains the faulty term "African Americans". What you mean is blacks. There are hundreds of people in the US who are "African Americans", who are white.
Don't try to tell me what I mean. African Americans is shorthand for "people of African descent" when I use it. You don't like it, tough shit, you can't do anything about it, other than continue to be WRONG.
Yeah, that:s one of the main differences between you and me. What you just described is all you got.Ever hear of Microsoft? You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?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.
I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
White supremist are the least of anybody's problems Actually the high black CRIME rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or needed...That's far larger issue .What is White Supremacy?
I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
I won't even bother to ask what the hell that means. No need to tell me. lolYour wife is going to be really pissed off when she finds out what you've dragged her into.And when they laugh at this, they should pay double.
Eyes and ears are your best source of information. Too bad liberals are wrapped up BS "reports"I dont' have to read, I already know it doesn't contain anything of substance.So if you saw see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, you would agree with a report that says the community is economically healthy, right ? Is this how brain-fried liberals are ?
Wow, are YOU ever stupid. Read my post that you quoted over again. Maybe this time a bit slower. Read it 20 times if necessary. Maybe eventually it will sink in. Only an idiot could disagree with it.
And I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony, you moron.
It doesn't surprise me that you missed the eyes & ears reference.
My math is fine. Maybe you could get a beads counter to help you.Your math sucks. The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago. So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation. There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.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.
