Alabama and Mississippi will also honor Robert E. Lee on Martin Luther King Jr. Day

[Superbadbrutha]

Lee was an interesting complex individual.. only leftists/Democrats are too Neanderthal to desire to inform themselves on the actual history

Lee = evil slave Nazi… that’s as deep as the left gets

Are you saying Lee didn't own slaves?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Just the middle man between the black slavers and the Native American slavers.

White men, thx you. See that wasn't so hard.

 

[el midgetron]

It's not made up you moron. Segregationist housing policies were a real thing. Are you going to retreat now into some ***** like cocoon and safe space where you pretend this isn't the case?

LOL I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the fake rules you demand in order to avoid an actual discussion. You refuse to engage in exercises of logic, so you just claim arguments that starting with “if” are a “big problem”. You refuse to consider contrasting comparisons, so you belly ache about talking about Asians. You refuse to recognize any disparity that doesn’t fit your woke narrative.

You literally refuse to consider reason and even failed to recognize deductive logic. You are an idealogue who demands their way like a child. You just make shit up to avoid confronting your half naked liberal dogma.

Disparity does not automatically equal discrimination. No amount of woke NPR podcasts will change that fact. Until you can demonstrate otherwise, your foregone conclusion is just piss in the wind.

 

[Curried Goats]

LOL I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the fake rules you demand in order to avoid an actual discussion. You refuse to engage in exercises of logic, so you just claim arguments that starting with “if” are a “big problem”. You refuse to consider contrasting comparisons, so you belly ache about talking about Asians. You refuse to recognize any disparity that doesn’t fit your woke narrative.

It's not my rule guy. It's simple logic. Asians and Black Americans aren't the same people and they didn't face the same adversities.

You literally refuse to consider reason and even failed to recognize deductive logic. You are an idealogue who demands their way like a child. You just make shit up to avoid confronting your half naked liberal dogma.

Your imagination of what could of been isn't deductive logic.

Discrimination does not automatically equal discrimination. No amount of woke NPR podcasts will change that fact. Until you can demonstrate otherwise, your foregone conclusion is just piss in the wind.

What the ****? Discrimination does not automatically equal discrimination? I don't even know what you're trying to say.

Discrimination = Discrimination. Moron.

 

[el midgetron]

White men, thx you. See that wasn't so hard.

It’s apparently much easier than recognizing that your woke “people of color coalition” is just anti white racism.

White people kept black slaves and you bemoan them like the devil. Your POC coalition keeps black slaves and you rush in to excuse, deflect and defend them.

 

[Curried Goats]

It’s apparently much easier than recognizing that your woke “people of color coalition” is just anti white racism.

White people kept black slaves and you bemoan them like the devil. Your POC coalition keeps black slaves and you rush in to excuse, deflect and defend them.

What coalition is keeping people as slaves?

 

[el midgetron]

It's not my rule guy. It's simple logic. Asians and Black Americans aren't the same people and they didn't face the same adversities.

They both face systemic racism and have both had very different outcomes. It’s a completely valid question as to what makes the difference.

It’s also very inconvenient for your woke narrative that despite any amount of systemic oppression, Asians have not lagged behind whites. Rather they have surpasses them in the very same economic context your argument for reparations a is centered.

Your imagination of what could of been isn't deductive logic.

Asking “what if” is deductive logic. You even admitted this when you referenced cause and effect. If is the cause, then is the effect. Text book deductive logic.

What the ****? Discrimination does not automatically equal discrimination? I don't even know what you're trying to say.

Discrimination = Discrimination. Moron.

Typo. I fixed it for you. If you were putting any honest effort into this you would have understood from the past 4 or 5 times I have suggested that “disparity” does not automatically equal “discrimination”. Again, this is a point you wrongly believe you can make up some fake BS to simply
dismiss.

 

[el midgetron]

What coalition is keeping people as slaves?

Native Americans, black people, non whites.

 

[Curried Goats]

They both face systemic racism and have both had very different outcomes. It’s a completely valid question as to what makes the difference.

Different sorts, to different extents and at different periods in time. It's not useful for examining any outcomes. Your own link acknowledged that during segregation in many instances they were treated as white.

It’s also very inconvenient for your woke narrative that despite any amount of systemic oppression, Asians have not lagged behind whites. Rather they have surpasses them in the very same economic context your argument for reparations a is centered.

Rationality is very convenient for me. Go and detail the discrimination Asians faced and then pick those Asians apart from the middle and upper class asian immigrants who've been coming here as engineers and tech workers and tell me what their situation is. I'll wait.

Asking “what if” is deductive logic. You even admitted this when you referenced cause and effect. If is the cause, then is the effect. Text book deductive logic.

You don't have an answer though that isn't rooted in fantasy. That IF question I asked was all about possibilities, not about what actually happens. If you make a different action, you get a different outcome. I don't say what the action or outcome is because I don't know. We do know that segregationists housing policies happened.

Typo. I fixed it for you. If you were putting any honest effort into this you would have understood from the past 4 or 5 times I have suggested that “disparity” does not automatically equal “discrimination”. Again, this is a point you wrongly believe you can make up some fake BS to simply
dismiss.

Again, that is a statement about some possible other thing. Segregationists policies did discriminate based on housing and what resulted was a disparity in wealth and home ownership.

 

[el midgetron]

Different sorts, to different extents and at different periods in time. It's not useful for examining any outcomes. Your own link acknowledged that during segregation in many instances they were treated as white.

They were discriminated against and marginalized. Outside the Japanese, were they ever given reparations? If not, how did they manage to economically surpass the white supremacist overlords?

Rationality is very convenient for me. Go and detail the discrimination Asians faced and then pick those Asians apart from the middle and upper class asian immigrants who've been coming here as engineers and tech workers and tell me what their situation is. I'll wait.

No. The avoidance of reason is what is convenient for you.

If that examination is a requirement to understand the Asian experience, then it’s equally important to understanding the black experience. Despite what Moses-Biden says, there are different social classes in the black community, there are black doctors and engineers who continue to arrive here in ways other than slave ships.

You don't have an answer though that isn't rooted in fantasy. That IF question I asked was all about possibilities, not about what actually happens. If you make a different action, you get a different outcome. I don't say what the action or outcome is because I don't know. We do know that segregationists housing policies happened.

LOL Then Mr convenient rational, how do you know what was the cause of what is? How do you know anything could be different at all? Your position leaves open the possibility that black people would be economically disadvantaged no matter what happen in the past.

Your position negates the effects of segregation, the possibility of other factors and concludes “what is” regardless.

It’s not “fantasy” to suggest something like IF you hadn’t drank alcohol, THEN you wouldn’t have lost control of your car and crashed. You keep flip flopping between recognizing cause and effect and denying it.

Again, that is a statement about some possible other thing. Segregationists policies did discriminate based on housing and what resulted was a disparity in wealth and home ownership.

Disparity does not automatically equal discrimination. Your assumption is nothing more than woke dogma at this point.

Could it be the reason? Could it have contributed? Sure. But with out more than your insistence, there is no case to support that.

 

[Curried Goats]

They were discriminated against and marginalized. Outside the Japanese, were they ever given reparations? If not, how did they manage to economically surpass them I the white supremacist overlords?

Who's they? Document it you Simp.

No. The avoidance of reason is what is convenient for you.

Your vague arguments about similar discrimination which you haven't documented isn't reason.

If that examination is a requirement to understand the Asian experience, then it’s equally important to understanding the black experience. Despite what Moses-Biden says, there are different social classes in the black community, there are black doctors and engineers who continue to arrive here in ways other than slave ships.

Yes. Some of them are my family members. They've strived in America, but then again they weren't economically disenfranchised by America so.....

LOL Then Mr convenient rational, how do you know that was the cause of what is? How do you know anything could be different at all? Your position leaves open the possibility that black people would be economically disadvantaged no matter what happen in the past.

If you want to make your argument about all the things that could of been possible then be my guest. My argument is about what happened.

Your position negates the effects of segregation, the possibility of other factors and concludes “what is” regardless.

The only thing I'm negating are fantasies of what could of been as arguments. If you want to an argument about how segregation and housing discrimination didn't negatively impact Black Americans then let's see that evidence.

It’s not “fantasy” to suggest something like IF you hadn’t drank alcohol, THEN you wouldn’t have lost control of your car and crashed. You keep flip flopping between recognizing cause and effect and denying it.

Sure it is. They could of still flipped their car and crashed for any number of other reasons like poor road conditions, or a blow out. Really the possibilities are endless. The only thing we do know is that if they didn't drink and did flip their car it wouldn't be because they were drunk because we know what did happen, which in this case would of been them driving sober.

Disparity does not automatically equal discrimination. Your assumption is nothing more than woke dogma at this point.

I'm not saying it does. What I am saying is that black Americans were discriminated against in housing policies and segregation because they were.

Could it be the reason? Could it have contributed? Sure. But with out more than your insistence, there is no case to support that.

It wasn't my insistence. It was a whole ass detailed report of discrimination going back to the 30s that showed purposeful efforts to deny black Americans the benefits of home ownership that were being subsidized for white Americans by tax dollars black Americans contributed to but didn't receive the benefit from. And it concludes with the fact that the vast majority of white middle class wealth is in home ownership.

You have nothing but frail fantasy as a response. Seriously, just be the racist proud boy you want to be instead of all this silly pretense of intellectual capability.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It’s apparently much easier than recognizing that your woke “people of color coalition” is just anti white racism.

Give me some examples of how black folks in America have been racist against white folks in America.

White people kept black slaves and you bemoan them like the devil.

Don't you think it is evil and inhumane to enslave someone?

Your POC coalition keeps black slaves and you rush in to excuse, deflect and defend them.

Please show me where I have ever justified anyone having slaves. You are the one trying to make an excuse for whites have done to black folks in America.

 

[el midgetron]

Who's they? Document it you Simp.

So, to support your woke dogma you are now going to deny the other groups were marginalized in this country too? This is again you ignoring disparities that don’t fit your narrative.

In reality, there are even instances where black people were afforded privilege that Asians were not. Reality is more complex than your woke version of history. Here is just a primer -

Anti-Coolie Act of 1862: This act intended to limit the competition between white workers and Asian Americans by imposing a tax on Asian Americans who attempted to work in manufacturing factories as well as to employers who hired Asian Americans. It also was intended to decrease immigration from Asian countries by reducing the number of jobs available.​

Naturalization Act of 1870: This act allowed naturalized citizenship for African Americans while still denying naturalization to any other non-white person, including Asian Americans.

In re Ah Yup is a landmark case that ruled Asians ineligible for naturalized citizenship. In re Ah Yup tried to convince the court that those of Mongolian race should be seen as “white,” which would then make them eligible for naturalized US citizenship. The court ruled that, because Mongolians are born in China, they cannot be deemed as “white,” and therefore ineligible for US citizenship.

The California Constitution of 1879 deterred Chinese immigration into California by prohibiting corporations from employing them. This part of the constitution restricted and decreased the number of Chinese people in California for fear that they would take over the state.

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882: The law banned immigration of Chinese laborers. It wasn’t repealed until 1943.​

In 1882, the US Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers (skilled or unskilled) for a period of ten years. The Act also required every Chinese person traveling in or out of the country to carry a certificate identifying his or her status as a laborer, scholar, diplomat, or merchant. The 1882 Act was the first in American history to place broad restrictions on immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Acts (subsequent restrictions were added to the initial 1882 Act) were not repealed until 1943.


Asiatic Exclusion League: In May 1905, the Japanese and Korean Exclusion League was organized in San Francisco to prohibit immigration of Asian laborers to the US. It was expanded and renamed in 1907 as the Asiatic Exclusion League, which promoted policies banning immigration and employment of Asian immigrants, created anti-Asian propaganda, and advocated for segregated schools.

The California Alien Land Law of 1913 (also known as the Webb–Haney Act) prohibited “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning agricultural land or holding long-term leases for it. As a result, many California farmers of Asian descent (especially Japanese Americans) were forced to relinquish their farms and moved elsewhere.

Immigration Act of 1917: Building on the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Barred Zone Act), discriminated against persons of Asian descent, by creating a “barred zone” extending from the Middle East to Southeast Asia from which no persons were allowed to enter the US.

1922 Cable Act: Under previous law, women who were US citizens would lose their citizenship if they married a non-US citizen. This law enabled those women to retain their citizenship despite marriages to non-US citizens. However, it did not apply to women who married “aliens ineligible for citizenship,” including Asian immigrant men.

1922 Takao Ozawa v. United States: US Supreme Court upholds the Naturalization Law which declared Japanese and other Asian immigrants ineligible for citizenship.

1923 United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind: US Supreme Court rules Indians are ineligible for US citizenship. At this point, nearly all Asians were ineligible for citizenship.

1927 Lum v. Rice: This case ruled that exclusion by race of Chinese Americans from public school did not violate the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, effectively allowing the exclusion of minority children from schools reserved for whites.

1933 Roldan vs. LA County: A California Appellate court found that the state's anti-miscegenation laws did not specifically bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. LA County officials appealed to the Supreme Court of California, who decided not to review the case. After one week the California State Legislature voted to amend the code in question to ensure that Filipinos could not marry whites.

1937 Anti-Alien Land Bill amendment: Washington State passed a series of amendments to their Alien Land Bill of 1921. Primarily targeting Japanese American agricultural workers, one of the amendments to the law clarified the definition of “alien” as meaning “non-citizens of the United States … who are ineligible to citizenship by naturalization.”

Request Rejected

exhibits.stanford.edu

The 14th and 15th Amendments opened voting rights to all native-born American men regardless of race. Asian American communities were still restricted from suffrage through literacy tests, property restrictions, and voter intimidation. It was not until 1943 and the passage of the Magnuson Act that Chinese immigrants could begin naturalizing as U.S. citizens. Truly broad access to American citizenship and voting rights was not available to Asians and Asian Americans until the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1952 and 1965. These acts removed race as a barrier to immigration and citizenship, effectively ending two centuries of restrictions and legal disenfranchisement.

State of Oregon: Woman Suffrage - Asian American Suffrage

The official website of the Oregon Secretary of State

sos.oregon.gov

If you want to make your argument about all the things that could have been possible then be my guest. My argument is about what happened.

Your argument ignores all other possibilities outside your woke dogma. It doesn’t even count as an “argument” it’s akin to religious doctrine, and based in faith alone. That’s fine, but you continue to demonstrate your lack of reason.

If you want to an argument about how segregation and housing discrimination didn't negatively impact Black Americans then let's see that evidence.

I have not argued that. You were doing better but it looks like you are sliding back into confusion and delusion.

Sure it is. They could of still flipped their car and crashed for any number of other reasons like poor road conditions, or a blow out. Really the possibilities are endless. The only thing we do know is that if they didn't drink and did flip their car it wouldn't be because they were drunk because we know what did happen, which in this case would of been them driving sober.

Oh, lookie here! See how easy it was to get you to agree that there is more than just one possibility between points “A” and “B”?

Disparity does not automatically equal discrimination. It’s up to you to support your claim. Simply bleating that you are arguing about “what happened” and everything else is fantasy just shows how flawed and unproven your argument is.

I'm not saying it does. What I am saying is that black Americans were discriminated against in housing policies and segregation because they were.

Again, no one is disputing that. You are the one claiming that it’s the only possible reason for the disparity today.

Again with the flip flopping.

You have nothing but frail fantasy as a response. Seriously, just be the racist proud boy you want to be instead of all this silly pretense of intellectual capability.

So going back to the drunk driver analogy, before you claimed there was an host of other possibilities than just assuming the driver was drunk, however NOW you are again claiming that any other possibility is just a “frail fantasy”?

Make it make sense.

Like I said yesterday, you just make baloney up, even if it contradicts the previous baloney you made up.

 

[el midgetron]

Give me some examples of how black folks in America have been racist against white folks in America

Well, take a good look in mirror and reflect on your own biases.

Why is it that prominent black academics like Ibram x Kendi argue that “whiteness” inherently makes white people subhuman?

Or prescribes a host of race specific negative traits to white people and white people alone? While race based criticism of any other group is easily recognized as racist?

Apparently you have been so acclimated to the your anti white racism that you can no longer smell your own shit.

Don't you think it is evil and inhumane to enslave someone?

Yes. And unlike you, I believe that no matter the color of the slave or slaver’s skin. You won’t even condemn slavery of black people if it means breaking from the coalition of POC that white liberals have Balkanized you into.

Please show me where I have ever justified anyone having slaves. You are the one trying to make an excuse for whites have done to black folks in America.

When I brought up the historical fact, that Native Americans were the last owners of black slaves in America and that it took white men to negotiate their freedom, you immediate deflected responsibility away from those slave owners. You not only justified it, you excused it.

 

[J.S.]

Literally. He literally led forces that intentionally killed US Soldiers. He committed insurrection in a time of war and would have been hung or shot if not pardoned.

Ya, I guess he could have figuratively led forces that intentionally killed US soldiers.