Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It isn't Affirmative Action when a women decided she needed or wanted to work outside of the household. If a women isn't qualified she will not hold a position long at a job. Women have fought for their rightful place in the workforce, equal pay for equal skills, etc. You talk of laws that should have been given to blacks long before they were, I agree, but women were also denied many things in the past. Giving them the same rights as men is not being given an advantage, such as AA.And that's the problem, your opinion. Affirmative action has benefitted white families because of the increased earning power of white women and the majority of whites did not vote for Obama in 2008. Seems that whites don't seriously want to talk about race. People like you want a pat on the back for passing laws to give us what we were supposed to have on 7-4-1776, in the 1960's, 190 years after all men were created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.In my opinion, most Caucasians prefer not to discuss the topic of "race" because there is no value to doing so.
Since the 1960s, the current majority ethnicity has apologized for past discrimination toward people of color by instituting affirmative action in all areas. In 2008 there occurred the historic presidential election result.
I believe that the current majority ethnicity deserves a shoutout for doing everything possible to ensure "justice and liberty for all."
According to most demographic studies, Caucasians will soon become a minority.
Hopefully, the eventual new majority will continue to ensure "justice and liberty for all."
Women had to fight for equal opportunity and pay in the workforce because of belief bigoted, misogynistic hiring managers that they could not effectively compete in the workforce at the managerial level in numerous professions.
In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list and is considered a part of Affirmative action, and was intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population. It's not an "advantage", it is legislation that ELIMINATED an unfair advantage by including minorities and females.
But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.
And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.
I'm not denying anything. As usual you are ASSuming.
Like it or not, the probability of many BETTER qualified women is more likely.
There are more of them.
It isn't Affirmative Action when a women decided she needed or wanted to work outside of the household. If a women isn't qualified she will not hold a position long at a job. Women have fought for their rightful place in the workforce, equal pay for equal skills, etc. You talk of laws that should have been given to blacks long before they were, I agree, but women were also denied many things in the past. Giving them the same rights as men is not being given an advantage, such as AA.And that's the problem, your opinion. Affirmative action has benefitted white families because of the increased earning power of white women and the majority of whites did not vote for Obama in 2008. Seems that whites don't seriously want to talk about race. People like you want a pat on the back for passing laws to give us what we were supposed to have on 7-4-1776, in the 1960's, 190 years after all men were created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.
Women had to fight for equal opportunity and pay in the workforce because of belief bigoted, misogynistic hiring managers that they could not effectively compete in the workforce at the managerial level in numerous professions.
In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list and is considered a part of Affirmative action, and was intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population. It's not an "advantage", it is legislation that ELIMINATED an unfair advantage by including minorities and females.
But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.
And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.
I'm not denying anything. As usual you are ASSuming.
Like it or not, the probability of many BETTER qualified women is more likely.
There are more of them.
Your presentation of the problem, as simply giving equal access to women, denies the reality that the push for equal representation, has gone beyond that, to higher less qualified women.
THat you deny, denying it, is silly.
YOur odd reference to the fact that there are more women, overall, means nothing in the context of applications for specific jobs.
It isn't Affirmative Action when a women decided she needed or wanted to work outside of the household. If a women isn't qualified she will not hold a position long at a job. Women have fought for their rightful place in the workforce, equal pay for equal skills, etc. You talk of laws that should have been given to blacks long before they were, I agree, but women were also denied many things in the past. Giving them the same rights as men is not being given an advantage, such as AA.
Women had to fight for equal opportunity and pay in the workforce because of belief bigoted, misogynistic hiring managers that they could not effectively compete in the workforce at the managerial level in numerous professions.
In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list and is considered a part of Affirmative action, and was intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population. It's not an "advantage", it is legislation that ELIMINATED an unfair advantage by including minorities and females.
But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.
And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.
I'm not denying anything. As usual you are ASSuming.
Like it or not, the probability of many BETTER qualified women is more likely.
There are more of them.
Your presentation of the problem, as simply giving equal access to women, denies the reality that the push for equal representation, has gone beyond that, to higher less qualified women.
THat you deny, denying it, is silly.
YOur odd reference to the fact that there are more women, overall, means nothing in the context of applications for specific jobs.
Nothing odd about it at all, and what "specific jobs" are you vaguely referring to?
The fact that there are far more women not being subjected to the antiquated hiring practices of past generations , and the fact that there are now more who are professionally better prepared due to less workplace discrimination than in the past, as well as their relative population size does not mean that more "underqualified women" are being placed.
In many cases they simply outwork and outthink certain men who even now hold the belief that it is still a bygone era and they are therefore "entitled".
That in itself is the epitome of "denial"
And there are still far too many who actually think that way.
And there is no DENYING that.
Women had to fight for equal opportunity and pay in the workforce because of belief bigoted, misogynistic hiring managers that they could not effectively compete in the workforce at the managerial level in numerous professions.
In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list and is considered a part of Affirmative action, and was intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population. It's not an "advantage", it is legislation that ELIMINATED an unfair advantage by including minorities and females.
But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.
And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.
I'm not denying anything. As usual you are ASSuming.
Like it or not, the probability of many BETTER qualified women is more likely.
There are more of them.
Your presentation of the problem, as simply giving equal access to women, denies the reality that the push for equal representation, has gone beyond that, to higher less qualified women.
THat you deny, denying it, is silly.
YOur odd reference to the fact that there are more women, overall, means nothing in the context of applications for specific jobs.
Nothing odd about it at all, and what "specific jobs" are you vaguely referring to?
The fact that there are far more women not being subjected to the antiquated hiring practices of past generations , and the fact that there are now more who are professionally better prepared due to less workplace discrimination than in the past, as well as their relative population size does not mean that more "underqualified women" are being placed.
In many cases they simply outwork and outthink certain men who even now hold the belief that it is still a bygone era and they are therefore "entitled".
That in itself is the epitome of "denial"
And there are still far too many who actually think that way.
And there is no DENYING that.
It is odd, because it is not relevant to anything that anyone is saying.
ANd in many cases, they do not outwork or outthink the men they are competing against, and yet are giving the jobs or the promotions, because of bullshit reasons.
YOur misrepresentation of this issue as men feeling "entitled" to anything, is just you being a dick.
But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.
And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.
I'm not denying anything. As usual you are ASSuming.
Like it or not, the probability of many BETTER qualified women is more likely.
There are more of them.
Your presentation of the problem, as simply giving equal access to women, denies the reality that the push for equal representation, has gone beyond that, to higher less qualified women.
THat you deny, denying it, is silly.
YOur odd reference to the fact that there are more women, overall, means nothing in the context of applications for specific jobs.
Nothing odd about it at all, and what "specific jobs" are you vaguely referring to?
The fact that there are far more women not being subjected to the antiquated hiring practices of past generations , and the fact that there are now more who are professionally better prepared due to less workplace discrimination than in the past, as well as their relative population size does not mean that more "underqualified women" are being placed.
In many cases they simply outwork and outthink certain men who even now hold the belief that it is still a bygone era and they are therefore "entitled".
That in itself is the epitome of "denial"
And there are still far too many who actually think that way.
And there is no DENYING that.
It is odd, because it is not relevant to anything that anyone is saying.
ANd in many cases, they do not outwork or outthink the men they are competing against, and yet are giving the jobs or the promotions, because of bullshit reasons.
YOur misrepresentation of this issue as men feeling "entitled" to anything, is just you being a dick.
I'm not misrepresenting anything, asshole.
I base what I say on what I saw in 40 years in the workforce, supervising men and women in middle and upper management.
So it is TOTALLY RELEVANT....just not what YOU would have liked to have been told.
It sounds like you are a bitter little person who was outworked and out thought by numerous women and likely some minorities and are angry because opportunity passed you by.
And for the record, you have complained about certain posters here not engaging you.
Maybe one of the reasons why is that when you disagree with a dissenting opinion, you are unable to do so without being
A DICK yourself.
Fuck You.
I'm not denying anything. As usual you are ASSuming.
Like it or not, the probability of many BETTER qualified women is more likely.
There are more of them.
Your presentation of the problem, as simply giving equal access to women, denies the reality that the push for equal representation, has gone beyond that, to higher less qualified women.
THat you deny, denying it, is silly.
YOur odd reference to the fact that there are more women, overall, means nothing in the context of applications for specific jobs.
Nothing odd about it at all, and what "specific jobs" are you vaguely referring to?
The fact that there are far more women not being subjected to the antiquated hiring practices of past generations , and the fact that there are now more who are professionally better prepared due to less workplace discrimination than in the past, as well as their relative population size does not mean that more "underqualified women" are being placed.
In many cases they simply outwork and outthink certain men who even now hold the belief that it is still a bygone era and they are therefore "entitled".
That in itself is the epitome of "denial"
And there are still far too many who actually think that way.
And there is no DENYING that.
It is odd, because it is not relevant to anything that anyone is saying.
ANd in many cases, they do not outwork or outthink the men they are competing against, and yet are giving the jobs or the promotions, because of bullshit reasons.
YOur misrepresentation of this issue as men feeling "entitled" to anything, is just you being a dick.
I'm not misrepresenting anything, asshole.
I base what I say on what I saw in 40 years in the workforce, supervising men and women in middle and upper management.
So it is TOTALLY RELEVANT....just not what YOU would have liked to have been told.
It sounds like you are a bitter little person who was outworked and out thought by numerous women and likely some minorities and are angry because opportunity passed you by.
And for the record, you have complained about certain posters here not engaging you.
Maybe one of the reasons why is that when you disagree with a dissenting opinion, you are unable to do so without being
A DICK yourself.
Fuck You.
I clearly stated that I was referencing examples of discrimination in favor of women.
It would be one thing for you to disagree with me that that was occurring.
INstead you choose to pretend that I was referring to examples of women being the better worker or choice.
That was you lying.
And now you are angry that I am calling you on it.
Typical lefty.
Do you want to address my actual point now, or are you going to storm off in a huff?
Here it is again.
But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.
And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.
Your presentation of the problem, as simply giving equal access to women, denies the reality that the push for equal representation, has gone beyond that, to higher less qualified women.
THat you deny, denying it, is silly.
YOur odd reference to the fact that there are more women, overall, means nothing in the context of applications for specific jobs.
Nothing odd about it at all, and what "specific jobs" are you vaguely referring to?
The fact that there are far more women not being subjected to the antiquated hiring practices of past generations , and the fact that there are now more who are professionally better prepared due to less workplace discrimination than in the past, as well as their relative population size does not mean that more "underqualified women" are being placed.
In many cases they simply outwork and outthink certain men who even now hold the belief that it is still a bygone era and they are therefore "entitled".
That in itself is the epitome of "denial"
And there are still far too many who actually think that way.
And there is no DENYING that.
It is odd, because it is not relevant to anything that anyone is saying.
ANd in many cases, they do not outwork or outthink the men they are competing against, and yet are giving the jobs or the promotions, because of bullshit reasons.
YOur misrepresentation of this issue as men feeling "entitled" to anything, is just you being a dick.
I'm not misrepresenting anything, asshole.
I base what I say on what I saw in 40 years in the workforce, supervising men and women in middle and upper management.
So it is TOTALLY RELEVANT....just not what YOU would have liked to have been told.
It sounds like you are a bitter little person who was outworked and out thought by numerous women and likely some minorities and are angry because opportunity passed you by.
And for the record, you have complained about certain posters here not engaging you.
Maybe one of the reasons why is that when you disagree with a dissenting opinion, you are unable to do so without being
A DICK yourself.
Fuck You.
I clearly stated that I was referencing examples of discrimination in favor of women.
It would be one thing for you to disagree with me that that was occurring.
INstead you choose to pretend that I was referring to examples of women being the better worker or choice.
That was you lying.
And now you are angry that I am calling you on it.
Typical lefty.
Do you want to address my actual point now, or are you going to storm off in a huff?
Here it is again.
But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.
And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.
WTF are you talking about? I am abundantly clear on what you THINK your point was.
Nor am I angry. You stated that I was being "a dick", and I responded in kind.
It was YOU who implied that women are receiving preferential treatment over men, by stating that women(in general)
who are underqualified are being favored over men......yet, you did not identify a single example or fact to prove your assertion.
I told you straight up that I personally saw examples of men being outworked by women, and also stated that there are still men out there who feel entitled over women, and I can cite numerous examples of that.
Lastly, you have a tendency to label people as "lefties", when they disagree with your views.
Just to give you some clarity, I am not left nor right, because both sides are crooked and will lie to further their personal agendas.
Nothing odd about it at all, and what "specific jobs" are you vaguely referring to?
The fact that there are far more women not being subjected to the antiquated hiring practices of past generations , and the fact that there are now more who are professionally better prepared due to less workplace discrimination than in the past, as well as their relative population size does not mean that more "underqualified women" are being placed.
In many cases they simply outwork and outthink certain men who even now hold the belief that it is still a bygone era and they are therefore "entitled".
That in itself is the epitome of "denial"
And there are still far too many who actually think that way.
And there is no DENYING that.
It is odd, because it is not relevant to anything that anyone is saying.
ANd in many cases, they do not outwork or outthink the men they are competing against, and yet are giving the jobs or the promotions, because of bullshit reasons.
YOur misrepresentation of this issue as men feeling "entitled" to anything, is just you being a dick.
I'm not misrepresenting anything, asshole.
I base what I say on what I saw in 40 years in the workforce, supervising men and women in middle and upper management.
So it is TOTALLY RELEVANT....just not what YOU would have liked to have been told.
It sounds like you are a bitter little person who was outworked and out thought by numerous women and likely some minorities and are angry because opportunity passed you by.
And for the record, you have complained about certain posters here not engaging you.
Maybe one of the reasons why is that when you disagree with a dissenting opinion, you are unable to do so without being
A DICK yourself.
Fuck You.
I clearly stated that I was referencing examples of discrimination in favor of women.
It would be one thing for you to disagree with me that that was occurring.
INstead you choose to pretend that I was referring to examples of women being the better worker or choice.
That was you lying.
And now you are angry that I am calling you on it.
Typical lefty.
Do you want to address my actual point now, or are you going to storm off in a huff?
Here it is again.
But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.
And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.
WTF are you talking about? I am abundantly clear on what you THINK your point was.
Nor am I angry. You stated that I was being "a dick", and I responded in kind.
It was YOU who implied that women are receiving preferential treatment over men, by stating that women(in general)
who are underqualified are being favored over men......yet, you did not identify a single example or fact to prove your assertion.
I told you straight up that I personally saw examples of men being outworked by women, and also stated that there are still men out there who feel entitled over women, and I can cite numerous examples of that.
Lastly, you have a tendency to label people as "lefties", when they disagree with your views.
Just to give you some clarity, I am not left nor right, because both sides are crooked and will lie to further their personal agendas.
Stating that women as a group, are being discriminated in favor of, does not imply that all women are less qualified or work less hard.
Consider it given, that I am not complaining about women who get what they get, though hard and good work.
I am talking about those that get what they get, because of preferential treatment.
Yes, there are some men, I don't know how in this world, who manage to be isolated enough that they still feel entitled. Those men, when they are found out, should be dealt with with the old school anti-discrimination laws.
It is odd, because it is not relevant to anything that anyone is saying.
ANd in many cases, they do not outwork or outthink the men they are competing against, and yet are giving the jobs or the promotions, because of bullshit reasons.
YOur misrepresentation of this issue as men feeling "entitled" to anything, is just you being a dick.
I'm not misrepresenting anything, asshole.
I base what I say on what I saw in 40 years in the workforce, supervising men and women in middle and upper management.
So it is TOTALLY RELEVANT....just not what YOU would have liked to have been told.
It sounds like you are a bitter little person who was outworked and out thought by numerous women and likely some minorities and are angry because opportunity passed you by.
And for the record, you have complained about certain posters here not engaging you.
Maybe one of the reasons why is that when you disagree with a dissenting opinion, you are unable to do so without being
A DICK yourself.
Fuck You.
I clearly stated that I was referencing examples of discrimination in favor of women.
It would be one thing for you to disagree with me that that was occurring.
INstead you choose to pretend that I was referring to examples of women being the better worker or choice.
That was you lying.
And now you are angry that I am calling you on it.
Typical lefty.
Do you want to address my actual point now, or are you going to storm off in a huff?
Here it is again.
But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.
And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.
WTF are you talking about? I am abundantly clear on what you THINK your point was.
Nor am I angry. You stated that I was being "a dick", and I responded in kind.
It was YOU who implied that women are receiving preferential treatment over men, by stating that women(in general)
who are underqualified are being favored over men......yet, you did not identify a single example or fact to prove your assertion.
I told you straight up that I personally saw examples of men being outworked by women, and also stated that there are still men out there who feel entitled over women, and I can cite numerous examples of that.
Lastly, you have a tendency to label people as "lefties", when they disagree with your views.
Just to give you some clarity, I am not left nor right, because both sides are crooked and will lie to further their personal agendas.
Stating that women as a group, are being discriminated in favor of, does not imply that all women are less qualified or work less hard.
Consider it given, that I am not complaining about women who get what they get, though hard and good work.
I am talking about those that get what they get, because of preferential treatment.
Yes, there are some men, I don't know how in this world, who manage to be isolated enough that they still feel entitled. Those men, when they are found out, should be dealt with with the old school anti-discrimination laws.
I did not imply that you stated "all women".
So as a "group", what percentage do you believe recieve preferential treatment and unearned advancement?
As for men, I never implied "all men" have a sense of entitlement, however I am old enough to recall when it was a common misconception that women in general were not suited for certain managerial positions.
White people don't like to talk with y'all about race because you tell us we're racist whether we are or not. You blame us for not having a 100% black perspective, even though we couldn't possibly, since we aren't black. So talk amongst yourselves; it's the only people you are comfortable talking to. Just don't complain that white folks don't want to talk to you about race.USMB is a fine example of this.
Why White People Don’t Like to Talk About Race
March 26, 2015 by Barnabas Piper
Most white people want no part of the conversation about race. We don’t want it with our baristas, our neighbors, our spouses, or anyone really. We don’t quite know what do each February during Black History Month. For most white people that’s Martin Luther King Jr. awareness month with a nod to Harriet Tubman and not much sense of any other aspect of black history or culture. The ongoing tensions surrounding the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and so many other incidents are more than most of us know what to do with (if we want anything to do with them at all).
Most of us grew up unaffected by the racial divide, or at least unaware of how it affected us. Now, though, the divide has been brought to us and we’re at a loss. We don’t want that conversation. We’re uncomfortable with it. Our responses tend to fall into two main groups.
Group 1: Don’t want to talk about race
This first group contains the bigots and racists. They don’t want to talk about race (or maybe they do for all the wrong reasons) because they want to be the only race. This bunch deserves a whole lot of ink, most of it not very pleasant, and none of it here. They are despicable products of unfortunate upbringings.
The majority of this group, though, is not outright bigoted. Instead they are outright ignorant and therefore subtly prejudiced. They are unexposed to minority cultures (not just black, but all non-white cultures) and unaware of the complexities, difficulties, and hurts there. Really most of white America is part of, or has been part of, this group. They are the comfortable majority, and thus they determine the status quo. Life is good, so why rock the boat? It’s not that they don’t “care” about the needs of others — you won’t find a more cause-oriented bunch of advocates than young, privileged white people — but those needs never really intersect with their lives at a personal and relational level. And they’re happy to keep it that way because any other way is uncomfortable and intimidating. It’s a passive aggressive approach to racial separation, and one most don’t even realize they’re participating in. Their ignorance is blindness they mistake for bliss.
Group 2: Don’t know how to talk about race
Why White People Don't Like to Talk About Race
Most here are not the blissfully ignorant. You are racists. Blacks here have been called all kinds of racist names and all kinds of overtly racist opinion has been spoken. Blissful ignorance is not why a thread about black names has been created at least 2 times sine I've actively started participating here. The same goes for other things.
Now watch the racism you will see from people who are going to complain. They never complain when a thread by a white person denigrating blacks is posted. Only when a thread about whites is made do they suddenly become colorblind.
White people don't like to talk with y'all about race because you tell us we're racist whether we are or not. You blame us for not having a 100% black perspective, even though we couldn't possibly, since we aren't black. So talk amongst yourselves; it's the only people you are comfortable talking to. Just don't complain that white folks don't want to talk to you about race.USMB is a fine example of this.
Why White People Don’t Like to Talk About Race
March 26, 2015 by Barnabas Piper
Most white people want no part of the conversation about race. We don’t want it with our baristas, our neighbors, our spouses, or anyone really. We don’t quite know what do each February during Black History Month. For most white people that’s Martin Luther King Jr. awareness month with a nod to Harriet Tubman and not much sense of any other aspect of black history or culture. The ongoing tensions surrounding the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and so many other incidents are more than most of us know what to do with (if we want anything to do with them at all).
Most of us grew up unaffected by the racial divide, or at least unaware of how it affected us. Now, though, the divide has been brought to us and we’re at a loss. We don’t want that conversation. We’re uncomfortable with it. Our responses tend to fall into two main groups.
Group 1: Don’t want to talk about race
This first group contains the bigots and racists. They don’t want to talk about race (or maybe they do for all the wrong reasons) because they want to be the only race. This bunch deserves a whole lot of ink, most of it not very pleasant, and none of it here. They are despicable products of unfortunate upbringings.
The majority of this group, though, is not outright bigoted. Instead they are outright ignorant and therefore subtly prejudiced. They are unexposed to minority cultures (not just black, but all non-white cultures) and unaware of the complexities, difficulties, and hurts there. Really most of white America is part of, or has been part of, this group. They are the comfortable majority, and thus they determine the status quo. Life is good, so why rock the boat? It’s not that they don’t “care” about the needs of others — you won’t find a more cause-oriented bunch of advocates than young, privileged white people — but those needs never really intersect with their lives at a personal and relational level. And they’re happy to keep it that way because any other way is uncomfortable and intimidating. It’s a passive aggressive approach to racial separation, and one most don’t even realize they’re participating in. Their ignorance is blindness they mistake for bliss.
Group 2: Don’t know how to talk about race
Why White People Don't Like to Talk About Race
Most here are not the blissfully ignorant. You are racists. Blacks here have been called all kinds of racist names and all kinds of overtly racist opinion has been spoken. Blissful ignorance is not why a thread about black names has been created at least 2 times sine I've actively started participating here. The same goes for other things.
Now watch the racism you will see from people who are going to complain. They never complain when a thread by a white person denigrating blacks is posted. Only when a thread about whites is made do they suddenly become colorblind.
I don't like getting "Winnered" by a racist, dammit. That's not what I meant.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
Well, another three score years on, would the Dr. be encouraged?
Great man.
I think he'd be encouraged, but nowhere close to kicking off his boots and retiring. It takes a long, long time to change cultural attitudes; some of those conditions still clearly exist, and as long as they do, people gotta keep rooting it out like weeds in the lawn.Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
Well, another three score years on, would the Dr. be encouraged?
Great man.
Well, anyone that would claim TODAY, that "the negro still is not free" would be full of shit.
Anyone that would claim that "the negro" is just living "on a lonely island of poverty" would be ignoring the large and healthy black middle class.
So, it would depend on what he was really looking for.
.....
The problem in talking to many whites about race is the fact that you don't listen. .....
I think he'd be encouraged, but nowhere close to kicking off his boots and retiring. It takes a long, long time to change cultural attitudes; some of those conditions still clearly exist, and as long as they do, people gotta keep rooting it out like weeds in the lawn.Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
Well, another three score years on, would the Dr. be encouraged?
Great man.
Well, anyone that would claim TODAY, that "the negro still is not free" would be full of shit.
Anyone that would claim that "the negro" is just living "on a lonely island of poverty" would be ignoring the large and healthy black middle class.
So, it would depend on what he was really looking for.
I think he'd be encouraged, but nowhere close to kicking off his boots and retiring. It takes a long, long time to change cultural attitudes; some of those conditions still clearly exist, and as long as they do, people gotta keep rooting it out like weeds in the lawn.Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
Well, another three score years on, would the Dr. be encouraged?
Great man.
Well, anyone that would claim TODAY, that "the negro still is not free" would be full of shit.
Anyone that would claim that "the negro" is just living "on a lonely island of poverty" would be ignoring the large and healthy black middle class.
So, it would depend on what he was really looking for.
