Zone1 It is time to retire a dumb idea and the rhetoric that goes with it.

[IM2]

Exactly. Jim Crow was a sop to Democrats who wanted no rights whatsoever for descendants of their slaves. The hopes freed blacks would sharecrop in debt bondage, keep quiet, and only technically be free. That happened in heavily Democratic counties.

A Republican president ended Reconstruction. Doing that made Jim Crow possible.

 

[IM2]

Today’s Democrats tear down statues of their Democrat-Confederate predecessors. Not trying to erase their own racist history of course……

Todays Republicans defend the confederacy.

 

[presonorek]

Those like you should really think before you say things.

8 Times the U.S. Government Gave White People Handouts to Get Ahead​

8 Times the U.S. Government Gave White People Handouts to Get Ahead

The 1830 Indian Removal Act With the help of the U.S. Army, Cherokee, Creek and other eastern Native American tribes were forced to relocate west of the

atlantablackstar.com

How Today’s White Middle Class Was Made Possible By Welfare​

Whites, angered at blacks and immigrants receiving “government handouts,” forget they were lifted out of poverty through racially exclusive welfare programs in the 30s.​

Between 2001 and 2010, Westmoreland County, Pa., lost at least 8,000 manufacturing jobs. That’s one explanation for why this once-blue region gave more votes to Donald Trump than did any other Pennsylvania county, helping swing the state in his favor and propelling him to a surprise victory.

Today, the federal government’s role in building and subsidizing the homestead communities—and the larger government programs to subsidize construction of white suburbs across the nation—is all but erased from history.

“We want our jobs back,” John Golomb, a retired steelworker in Westmoreland County and lifelong Democrat who voted for Trump, told the Wall Street Journal, adding that previous presidents from both parties “forgot us.”

A form of historical amnesia also afflicts Westmoreland County. Largely absent from discussions of its decline are the ambitious social welfare programs that once helped its residents climb out of poverty. Two generations ago, this area of rural Pennsylvania was the site of a sweeping — and successful — federal housing program. The New Deal subsistence homestead program, launched in 1933 with $25 million, built modern homes for low-wage industrial workers and gave them plots of land for subsistence farming. In this corner of coal country devastated by dangerous labor practices and low wages, federal officials constructed a new community that gave poor white families a stepping-stone to home ownership and the middle class. The story of this housing program is told by historians Timothy Kelly, Margaret Power and Michael Cary in Hope in Hard Times: Norvelt and the Struggle for Community During the Great Depression.

Norvelt, one of 34 communities in 18 states completed under the Roosevelt administration’s subsistence homestead program, remains today as a village of more than 1,000 residents in Westmoreland County. The median household income in Norvelt is more than $56,000, just above the state median. Fewer than three percent of residents live in poverty, a lower rate than any of the surrounding communities. It’s a monument to the potential for “an ambitious and innovative federal government” to “work positively in people’s lives,” the authors write. But it is also a reminder of the federal government’s inability — or refusal— to address the unyielding racial segregation in America’s housing markets. The authors can document just one African-American family living in Norvelt in the late 1930s, and the community is still largely white today.

Most of the community’s first residents were the children or grandchildren of immigrants from southern or eastern Europe and had lived in “coal patch” communities owned by Henry Clay Frick.

How Today’s White Middle Class Was Made Possible By Welfare

Whites, angered at blacks and immigrants receiving "government handouts," forget they were lifted out of poverty through racially exclusive welfare programs in the 30s.

inthesetimes.com

I said all. All means all and that’s all all means.

If you want to build a road, fine. Want to build a prison? Fine. Want to build a courthouse? Fine. Want to build a library? Not fine. Want to build a school? Not fine. Want to give people money for college? Not fine. Want to give people money for food? Not fine. Want to build a museum? Not fine. Want to build a civic center for rich folks? Not fine. Want to provide loans for housing? Not fine. So on and so forth. Anybody can drive on a road. Anybody can benefit from prisons that keep people out of society that are dangerous. When someone gets an education, a house, free food, and things like that only one single person benefits. That’s not a government function. Shut the fountain off of government goodies all the way. If it isn’t a government function then stop. Stop completely.

I’ll take every government benefit that has ever been made available and if I can take it twice I’ll take it twice. Just because I receive a government doesn’t make me obligated to say the government benefit I received is good policy. It isn’t and I’ll take as many government benefits that I can get my hands on.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Government's purpose is to serve people.

Benefits that help individuals serves the public.

Anyone who is libertarian, anarchist, or nihilist should be deprived of the vote.

 

[presonorek]

Anyone who is libertarian, anarchist, or nihilist should be deprived of the vote.

For the most part they are. Honesty has no place in government. It’s all about stealing from some and giving to others.

You don’t have to be as radical as taking away their right to vote. They have no influence. The thieves will always capture those positions that maximize their capacity to steal.

Libertarians just love to rub it in that they are always on the moral high ground. Let them have that at least.

 

[Seymour Flops]

A Republican president ended Reconstruction. Doing that made Jim Crow possible.

They ended Reconstruction to re-unite the Democrats with the Republicans in screwing ordinary people of whatever color.

Your worship of Democrats is illogical idolatry.

 

[Flash]

It is not surprising that blacks have less faith in the productive and transformative power of the free-market economy

Of course. In a free market you have to actually work. Blacks don't like to work. All they want is welfare.

Case in point. Trump produced the lowest Black unemployment in history but yet the idiot Blacks voted for Potatohead who did nothing more than promise them more welfare.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So how are things working out on the dem plantation?

The OP is correct: conservatives lying to blacks that they are ‘on a plantation’ because they oppose rightwing fear, ignorance, racism, bigotry, and hate will only keep them voting for Democrats.

 

[IM2]

Today’s Democrats tear down statues of their Democrat-Confederate predecessors. Not trying to erase their own racist history of course……

Todays Democrats would have opposed slavery. Todays Republicans filibustered a Voting Rights Bill and todays Republicans are people like you, and you are a virulent racist. So you can stop this disingenuous argument.

 

[BackAgain]

Todays Democrats would have opposed slavery. Todays Republicans filibustered a Voting Rights Bill and todays Republicans are people like you, and you are a virulent racist. So you can stop this disingenuous argument.

False.

 

[IM2]

They ended Reconstruction to re-unite the Democrats with the Republicans in screwing ordinary people of whatever color.

Your worship of Democrats is illogical idolatry.

I don't worship Democrats but I oppose the lying of Republicans. Both parties aren't really doing the screwing. One party is trying to end democracy today and it ain't Democrats.

 

[IM2]

I said all. All means all and that’s all all means.

If you want to build a road, fine. Want to build a prison? Fine. Want to build a courthouse? Fine. Want to build a library? Not fine. Want to build a school? Not fine. Want to give people money for college? Not fine. Want to give people money for food? Not fine. Want to build a museum? Not fine. Want to build a civic center for rich folks? Not fine. Want to provide loans for housing? Not fine. So on and so forth. Anybody can drive on a road. Anybody can benefit from prisons that keep people out of society that are dangerous. When someone gets an education, a house, free food, and things like that only one single person benefits. That’s not a government function. Shut the fountain off of government goodies all the way. If it isn’t a government function then stop. Stop completely.

I’ll take every government benefit that has ever been made available and if I can take it twice I’ll take it twice. Just because I receive a government doesn’t make me obligated to say the government benefit I received is good policy. It isn’t and I’ll take as many government benefits that I can get my hands on.

You can't benefit from government handouts at the expense of everyone else then demand an end to them unless everybody else gets everything you got to have what you do.

You opinion is ignorant. We pay taxes and the best investment a government can make is on it's people. We should get more for our money than an army.

 

[BackAgain]

You can't benefit from government handouts at the expense of everyone else then demand an end to them unless everybody else gets everything you got to have what you do.

It’s funny to see little im.2 going full retard.

You opinion is ignorant. We pay taxes and the best investment a government can make is on it's people. We should get more for our money than an army.

He had some more retard left in his tank. And I’m sure he’s topped it off by now.

 

[hadit]

Jim Crow was no different than slavery. That's not progress.

I've seen you say this before and you never said how the two are equal. Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be bought and sold? Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be forced to work for a plantation owner and be paid nothing? Under Jim Crow, could young black men be used as breeding stock, not much more valuable than a prize bull? Under Jim Crow, could black Americans legally be chased down and whipped for leaving a plantation? Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be forbidden to learn how to read and write or own property? Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be literally owned by a white man?

In the minds of sane people, Jim Crow and slavery are NOT synonymous. Please explain why, as you say, "Jim Crow was no different than slavery". And, before you get all offended and stuff, this is by no means a defense of Jim Crow.

 

[IM2]

I've seen you say this before and you never said how the two are equal. Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be bought and sold? Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be forced to work for a plantation owner and be paid nothing? Under Jim Crow, could young black men be used as breeding stock, not much more valuable than a prize bull? Under Jim Crow, could black Americans legally be chased down and whipped for leaving a plantation? Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be forbidden to learn how to read and write or own property? Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be literally owned by a white man?

In the minds of sane people, Jim Crow and slavery are NOT synonymous. Please explain why, as you say, "Jim Crow was no different than slavery". And, before you get all offended and stuff, this is by no means a defense of Jim Crow.

First of all slavery didn't end with the EP. Black Codes basically re instituted slavery in a different way. You go study things like vagrancy laws, sharecropping, convict leasing, sun down towns and other things then come back and talk.

 

[hadit]

First of all slavery didn't end with the EP. Black Codes basically re instituted slavery in a different way. You go study things like vagrancy laws, sharecropping, convict leasing, sun down towns and other things then come back and talk.

Dude, under slavery, people were literally OWNED by other people. Their families could be ripped apart at the whim of the plantation owner, children sold out from under parents. A slave could be brutalized, whipped, or raped for any reason at all, or sold to another plantation owner, with no right of protest. And all of this was not only LEGAL but expected.

1. Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be literally owned by other people?
2. Under Jim Crow, could black children be taken from their parents and sold to another master?
3. Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be captured, returned to their plantation, and beaten for simply leaving and going to a different place?

How you can claim that Jim Crow, bad as it was, "basically re-instituted slavery" is beyond me. There are plenty of negative things to take note of, but that's just not legitimate.

 

[Libby von H]

Blacks were Republicans for 100 years before many of us left tthe Republican Party. We left because the party didn't do a damn thing to stop Jim Crow while expectiing blacks to vote republican forever because of Abraham Lincoln. But we got tired of nothing and switched parties.

The conservative plantation theory holds that African Americans support the Democratic party in exchange for welfare benefits and other handouts, that the Democratic party cultivates black welfare dependency in order to keep black voters firmly in their camp, and that the liberal establishment through either incompetence or cynical calculation frustrates the aspirations of black Americans in critical areas such as education, family life, crime, and economic mobility.

If Democrats were buying votes with welfare benefits, one would expect support for the Democratic party to be less pronounced among high-income blacks and more pronounced among low-income whites. The opposite is the case. Wealthy African Americans, who have no financial stake in welfare benefits other than being taxed to pay for them, are politically very similar to less wealthy African Americans. By some measures, wealthy blacks are more liberal than poor blacks.

Which is not to say that black voters are not keenly interested in the welfare state, economic intervention, redistributive taxation, and the rest of the Democrats’ dependency agenda. They are. As I have shown at some length, it was the New Deal rather than the Democrats’ abrupt about-face on civil rights that attracted black voters. The last Republican presidential candidate to win a majority of the black vote was Herbert Hoover, and the majority of black voters were Democrats by the 1940s — a remarkable fact, given that the Democrats were still very much the party of segregation at that time, with future civil-rights enthusiast Lyndon Johnson fighting laws against lynching. African Americans remain more intensely supportive of New Deal programs such as Social Security and the minimum wage than are whites, even when their personal financial situations ensure that they are unlikely ever to earn the minimum wage or depend upon Social Security.

Conservatives should ask ourselves why that is. Not because it will help the Republican party win more black votes — that is an unlikely outcome — but because our first loyalty is to reality. Across income groups, African Americans are on balance less enthusiastic about free-market economic policies than are Anglo Americans; there is a rich tradition of entrepreneurship and self-improvement in black culture, but that does not translate into sympathy with the traditional conservative rhetoric on these subjects; and, shockingly, when asked by pollsters about their attitudes toward “capitalism” and “socialism” — using the actual words — more African Americans expressed positive views of socialism than of capitalism.

It is not surprising that blacks have less faith in the productive and transformative power of the free-market economy than do whites. Black Americans were for some centuries treated as an economic commodity themselves and were systematically excluded from full participation in the economy for generations after that.

The Plantation Theory | National Review

Cornel West is a very smart man who has some very dumb opinions, but when he’s feeling froggy he can be a hoot. In a recent interview, Professor West mocked Al Sharpton for playing the odalisque in…

www.nationalreview.com

This conservatives speaks to the reality off what blacks have faced instead of the dumb --- rhetoric we see here. Telling us that we are on a plantation because we vote against extremism is not going to get blacks to run to the republican party in large numbers.

Wait !!!!!!!!! EXCLUDED BY LIBERALS

Thomas Sowell says just what very liberal Sen Daniel Moynihan said about Blacks in the 60's !!!

SOWELL
Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and “war on poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”

…..

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children [78%] being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent [66%].

SENATOR MOYNIHAN
Moynihan often reeled off the dire statistics:

"About a quarter of Negro families are headed by women. The divorce rate is about 2 1/2 times what it is [compared with whites]," Moynihan said. "The number of fatherless children keeps growing. And all these things keep getting worse, not better, over recent years."

 

[IM2]

Wait !!!!!!!!! EXCLUDED BY LIBERALS

Thomas Sowell says just what very liberal Sen Daniel Moynihan said about Blacks in the 60's !!!

SOWELL
Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and “war on poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”

…..

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children [78%] being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent [66%].

SENATOR MOYNIHAN
Moynihan often reeled off the dire statistics:

"About a quarter of Negro families are headed by women. The divorce rate is about 2 1/2 times what it is [compared with whites]," Moynihan said. "The number of fatherless children keeps growing. And all these things keep getting worse, not better, over recent years."

First off Moynihan was wrong.

“In 1965, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s report, TheNegro Family: The Case for National Action, attributed racial inequality as well as poverty and crime in the black community to family structure, particularly the prevalence of families headed by single mothers. Not only did researchat the time cast doubt on this causality, but evidence over the last the 50 years demonstrates that rates of child poverty, educational attainment, and crime do not track rates of single parenthood. Thus, even though the share of children living with a single mother rose for all racial and ethnic groups through the mid-1990s and has remained high since then, school completion and youth arrests for violent crimes have declined significantly, while poverty rates have fluctuated according to economic conditions. Family structure does not drive racial inequity, and racial inequity persists regardless of family structure.”

-Amy Traub, Laura Sullivan, Tatjana Meschede and ThomasShapiro, DEMOS, “The Asset Value of Whiteness:Understanding the Racial Wealth Gap.

So using a black persons opinion doesn't make what Moynihan says right. Sowell is an economist not a social scientists and top sociologists have blasted his opinion. Thomas Sowell is an idiot, don't use his bs in trying to debate me.

HURTING THE DISADVANTAGED (Published 1984)

www.nytimes.com

Look at what he says. He acts like 47 percent is great. In 1959, the poverty rate for all American families was 20.8 percent. For white families, it was 16.5 percent. For black families, it was 54.9 percent. During the time people declared that black families were “intact,” black family poverty was 3.33 times that of white ones.

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2021 AnnualSocial and Economic Supplements (CPS ASEC). Table 2.Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and HispanicOrigin: 1959 to 2020, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html

Your argument is stale and long debunked.

 

[IM2]

Dude, under slavery, people were literally OWNED by other people. Their families could be ripped apart at the whim of the plantation owner, children sold out from under parents. A slave could be brutalized, whipped, or raped for any reason at all, or sold to another plantation owner, with no right of protest. And all of this was not only LEGAL but expected.

1. Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be literally owned by other people?
2. Under Jim Crow, could black children be taken from their parents and sold to another master?
3. Under Jim Crow, could black Americans be captured, returned to their plantation, and beaten for simply leaving and going to a different place?

How you can claim that Jim Crow, bad as it was, "basically re-instituted slavery" is beyond me. There are plenty of negative things to take note of, but that's just not legitimate.

What I said was accurate. Vagrancy laws allowed blacks to be imprisoned for basically nothing. Once put in prison, they could be leased to the person who paid their bail and forced to do labor. That's just one example. I told you to go study things and please do so.

 

[hadit]

What I said was accurate. Vagrancy laws allowed blacks to be imprisoned for basically nothing. Once put in prison, they could be leased to the person who paid their bail and forced to do labor. That's just one example. I told you to go study things and please do so.

Okay, you're arrested and have to work. That's it, for the rest of your life, and you can be sold to the next wealthy landowner when your current master gets tired of you? He can legally sell your children out from under you and you have no recourse because a man on a horse has a whip and he's eager to use it? He can put your female relatives on a pedestal, stripped naked where they are pawed at and someone checks out their teeth? And all done legally? Are you sure you really understand what being a slave in America was actually like?!?

There are many reasons to despise Jim Crow laws and what the democrats did to the black population through them, but to claim that they were no better than slavery is far from accurate. To say that basically means the entire Civil War was for nothing. All those half a million deaths did nothing to improve the lives of black Americans, and that's crap.