- Mar 11, 2015
- 77,068
- 34,259
- 2,330
Whites on the right have a purposeful case of Amnesia.
For example:
Critical race theory (CRT) makes race the lens through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation driven by racial groups, each with specific claims on victimization. Ultimately, CRT weakens the public and private bonds that create trust and allow for civic engagement.
heritageaction.com
The ability of the right to deny the truth is simply amazing.
When an enslaved person petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, the Court ruled against him—also ruling that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to Black people.
Pace v. Alabama (1883)
In 1883 Alabama, interracial marriage meant two to seven years' hard labor in a state penitentiary. When a Black man named Tony Pace and a white woman named Mary Cox challenged the law, the Supreme Court upheld it—on grounds that the law, inasmuch as it prevented whites from marrying Black people and Black people from marrying whites, was race-neutral and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
The Civil Rights Act, which mandated an end to racial segregation in public accommodations, actually passed twice in U.S. history. Once in 1875, and once in 1964. We don't hear much about the 1875 version because it was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases ruling of 1883, made up of five separate challenges to the 1875 Civil Rights Act. Had the Supreme Court simply upheld the 1875 civil rights bill, U.S. civil rights history would have been dramatically different.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Cumming v. Richmond (1899)
When three Black families in Richmond County, Virginia faced the closing of the area's only public Black high school, they petitioned the Court to allow their children to finish their education at the white high school instead. It only took the Supreme Court three years to violate its own "separate but equal" standard by establishing that if there was no suitable Black school in a given district, Black students would simply have to do without an education.
Ozawa v. United States (1922)
A Japanese immigrant, Takeo Ozawa, attempted to become a full U.S. citizen, despite a 1906 policy limiting naturalization to whites and Black people. Ozawa's argument was a novel one: Rather than challenging the constitutionality of the statute himself (which, under the racist Court, would have probably been a waste of time anyway), he simply attempted to establish that Japanese Americans were white. The Court rejected this logic.
An Indian American U.S. Army veteran named Bhagat Singh Thind attempted the same strategy as Takeo Ozawa, but his attempt at naturalization was rejected in a ruling establishing that Indians, too, are not white.
Lum v. Rice (1927)
In 1924, Congress passed the Oriental Exclusion Act to dramatically reduce immigration from Asia—but Asian Americans born in the United States were still citizens, and one of these citizens, a nine-year-old girl named Martha Lum, faced a catch-22. Under compulsory attendance laws, she had to attend school — but she was Chinese and she lived in Mississippi, which had racially segregated schools and not enough Chinese students to warrant funding a separate Chinese school. Lum's family sued to try to allow her to attend the well-funded local white school, but the Court would have none of it.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Chinese-miners-Cal-2500-3x2gty-57ef0d643df78c690f70fe75-31f91f49dfde4aed9b08acb0cb31fa28.jpg)
www.thoughtco.com
Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)
During World War II, President Roosevelt issued an executive order severely restricting the rights of Japanese Americans and ordering 110,000 to be relocated to internment camps. Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, challenged the executive order before the Supreme Court — and lost.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Fred Korematsu also challenged the executive order and lost in a more famous and explicit ruling that formally established that individual rights are not absolute and may be suppressed at will during wartime.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It says: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for a minimum of one year.
The Donation Land Claim Act of 1850, Section 5 “And be it further enacted, That to all white male citizens of the United States or persons who shall have made a declaration of intention to become such, above the age of twenty-one years, emigrating to and settling in said Territory between the first day of December, eighteen hundred and fifty, and the first day of December, eighteen hundred and fifty-three; and to all white male citizens, not hereinbefore provided for, becoming one and twenty years of age, in said Territory, and settling there between the times last aforesaid, who shall in other respects comply with the foregoing section and the provisions of this law, there shall be, and hereby is, granted the quantity of one quarter section, or one hundred and sixty acres of land, if a single man; or if married, or if he shall become married within one year after becoming twenty-one years of age as aforesaid, the quantity of one half section, or three hundred and twenty acres, one half to the husband and the other half to the wife in her own right, to be designated by the surveyor-general as aforesaid: Provided always, That no person shall ever receive a patent for more than one donation of land in said Territory in his or her own right: Provided, That no mineral lands shall be located or granted under the provisions of this act.”
Will whites on the right stop lying to themselves? I could post 1,000 of these decisions and still not get to 1 percent. Whites created race and made race thens through which everything is seen.
For example:
Reject Critical Race Theory
Critical race theory (CRT) makes race the lens through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation driven by racial groups, each with specific claims on victimization. Ultimately, CRT weakens the public and private bonds that create trust and allow for civic engagement.
Reject Critical Race Theory | Heritage Action For America
The conservative grassroots organization with an army of Sentinels and the leading conservative scorecard. Sister organization of the Heritage Foundation.
heritageaction.com
The ability of the right to deny the truth is simply amazing.
10 Racist Supreme Court Rulings in US History
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)When an enslaved person petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, the Court ruled against him—also ruling that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to Black people.
Pace v. Alabama (1883)
In 1883 Alabama, interracial marriage meant two to seven years' hard labor in a state penitentiary. When a Black man named Tony Pace and a white woman named Mary Cox challenged the law, the Supreme Court upheld it—on grounds that the law, inasmuch as it prevented whites from marrying Black people and Black people from marrying whites, was race-neutral and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
The Civil Rights Act, which mandated an end to racial segregation in public accommodations, actually passed twice in U.S. history. Once in 1875, and once in 1964. We don't hear much about the 1875 version because it was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases ruling of 1883, made up of five separate challenges to the 1875 Civil Rights Act. Had the Supreme Court simply upheld the 1875 civil rights bill, U.S. civil rights history would have been dramatically different.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Cumming v. Richmond (1899)
When three Black families in Richmond County, Virginia faced the closing of the area's only public Black high school, they petitioned the Court to allow their children to finish their education at the white high school instead. It only took the Supreme Court three years to violate its own "separate but equal" standard by establishing that if there was no suitable Black school in a given district, Black students would simply have to do without an education.
Ozawa v. United States (1922)
A Japanese immigrant, Takeo Ozawa, attempted to become a full U.S. citizen, despite a 1906 policy limiting naturalization to whites and Black people. Ozawa's argument was a novel one: Rather than challenging the constitutionality of the statute himself (which, under the racist Court, would have probably been a waste of time anyway), he simply attempted to establish that Japanese Americans were white. The Court rejected this logic.
United States v. Thind (1923)
An Indian American U.S. Army veteran named Bhagat Singh Thind attempted the same strategy as Takeo Ozawa, but his attempt at naturalization was rejected in a ruling establishing that Indians, too, are not white.
Lum v. Rice (1927)
In 1924, Congress passed the Oriental Exclusion Act to dramatically reduce immigration from Asia—but Asian Americans born in the United States were still citizens, and one of these citizens, a nine-year-old girl named Martha Lum, faced a catch-22. Under compulsory attendance laws, she had to attend school — but she was Chinese and she lived in Mississippi, which had racially segregated schools and not enough Chinese students to warrant funding a separate Chinese school. Lum's family sued to try to allow her to attend the well-funded local white school, but the Court would have none of it.
The Chinese Exclusion Act
19th Century Law Was First to Restrict Immigration of Specific Group
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a deliberately biased piece of legislation designed to curtail Chinese immigrants from entering the United States in the late 1800s.
Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)
During World War II, President Roosevelt issued an executive order severely restricting the rights of Japanese Americans and ordering 110,000 to be relocated to internment camps. Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, challenged the executive order before the Supreme Court — and lost.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Fred Korematsu also challenged the executive order and lost in a more famous and explicit ruling that formally established that individual rights are not absolute and may be suppressed at will during wartime.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It says: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.”
The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for a minimum of one year.
The Donation Land Claim Act of 1850, Section 5 “And be it further enacted, That to all white male citizens of the United States or persons who shall have made a declaration of intention to become such, above the age of twenty-one years, emigrating to and settling in said Territory between the first day of December, eighteen hundred and fifty, and the first day of December, eighteen hundred and fifty-three; and to all white male citizens, not hereinbefore provided for, becoming one and twenty years of age, in said Territory, and settling there between the times last aforesaid, who shall in other respects comply with the foregoing section and the provisions of this law, there shall be, and hereby is, granted the quantity of one quarter section, or one hundred and sixty acres of land, if a single man; or if married, or if he shall become married within one year after becoming twenty-one years of age as aforesaid, the quantity of one half section, or three hundred and twenty acres, one half to the husband and the other half to the wife in her own right, to be designated by the surveyor-general as aforesaid: Provided always, That no person shall ever receive a patent for more than one donation of land in said Territory in his or her own right: Provided, That no mineral lands shall be located or granted under the provisions of this act.”
Shelby County v. Holder In Shelby County v. Holder (2013),
the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provided the federal government with a formula to determine which voting jurisdictions should be subject to oversight when passing electoral laws.
Will whites on the right stop lying to themselves? I could post 1,000 of these decisions and still not get to 1 percent. Whites created race and made race thens through which everything is seen.
