Zone1 Here's Why White Guilt About Slavery Is Insane

[Robert W]

The problem is, those people all joined the Republican Party after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Acts.

Totally not true. Democrats remained anti race as long as 1980. Democrats fought Johnson since it was a republican created law.

Give us a reason all current reasons why Democrats will suddenly flock to our party, the Republicans.

 

[Failzero]

Totally not true. Democrats remained anti race as long as 1980. Democrats fought Johnson since it was a republican created law.

Give us a reason all current reasons why Democrats will suddenly flock to our party, the Republicans.

The Grayhair Kluxer Democrats like Byrd remained Democrats until they died

 

[Robert W]

Secession was the direct cause of the war.

Correct. Abe invaded VA because it seceded.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You could make quite a passable holocaust denier, you have all the rhetorical tricks pretty much mastered.

e.g. how about this



or

You just made no sense. Are you lonely and need attention or something?

 

[alang1216]

Your presumption is that racism is so systemic that it can only be addressed through government regulation and anyone who disagrees must be a racist.

Please don't presume to know my presumptions. If you don't want the government involved, what is your solution?

 

[jotathought]

You have no basis on which to disagree because others have received reparations.

I am quite sure no one living in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government made the Fort Laramie treaty with the Sioux Nation or were participants in Custers violation of that treaty. Nor were they alive when President Grant decided it was OK to let settlers and people prospecting for gold tresspass into land promised to the Sioux thereby violating the treaty. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to take the land from the Sioux by military force. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to cut off supplies they promised the Sioux as condition for their surrender after whipping the U.S. Army at The Battle of Little Bighorn. But in 1980, the government of the United States decided reparations were due to the Sioux Nation for what was done to them in the 1800’s. They awarded the Sioux nation 105 million dollars.

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians :: 448 U.S. 371 (1980) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/371/

This is just one example. Cobel v. Salazar and others are additional examples. Confederate soldiers and their descendants got reparations until at least 2017. President Obama released funds to pay Jews reparations for WW2 even though our country did not commit the crimes. You guys have been shown this, yet you still try to argue. After a while, repeating myself gets old, so you can just stop with your trifling, obtuse commentary.

In United States v Sioux Nation of Indians, it paid compensation for a specific treaty breach, instead of being a broad racial reparations program.

Connell v Salazar was for the mismanagement settlement over Indian trust accounts, a specific fiduciary failure, again not reparations.

Confederate soldiers were paid pensions by southern states and not the federal government. They were considered veterans pensions and not reparations.

I’m pretty confident reparations to holocaust survivors were paid by Germany, and Obama facilitated the claims and helped administer distributions.

Get your facts straight before making more ignorant responses

 

[Lisa558]

In United States v Sioux Nation of Indians, it paid compensation for a specific treaty breach, instead of being a broad racial reparations program.

Connell v Salazar was for the mismanagement settlement over Indian trust accounts, a specific fiduciary failure, again not reparations.

Confederate soldiers were paid pensions by southern states and not the federal government. They were considered veterans pensions and not reparations.

I’m pretty confident reparations to holocaust survivors were paid by Germany, and Obama facilitated the claims and helped administer distributions.

Get your facts straight before making more ignorant responses

The other big thing that IM2resentful skips over is that reparations paid to the above people were DIRECT VICTIMS.

It is beyond insulting that he thinks Jews who survived hell on Earth, were physically maimed for life, and suffered the loss of their families, homes, and livelihoods are in any way comparable to blacks who not only were never slaves, but have received blatant favoritism in getting into prestigious universities and law and medical schools for the past 50 years.

 

[Lisa558]

For example, let’s make a comparison:

My (step) grandfather survived the Holocaust, barely. He had been a teacher before the Nazi genocide, and afterward….he of course had no job to return to, but his wife and young son were murdered, and his house was in shambles and all possessions stolen. He was so physically damaged that he could never eat more than a spoonful or two of food at a time. Mostly, I recall him eating soup. He was fairly tall, but I doubt he weighed even 120 pounds.

For that, he received about $3000 a year initially, which ended up being $8000 after 30 years of inflation.

Now, how does that compare to IM2 and other blacks, who not only got accepted to prestigious colleges and grad schools since the 1970s due to their race, and also enjoyed “skin color points” when it came to jobs and promotions?

 

[JoeB131]

Totally not true. Democrats remained anti race as long as 1980. Democrats fought Johnson since it was a republican created law.

Give us a reason all current reasons why Democrats will suddenly flock to our party, the Republicans.

Prager U. Didn't even have to get past the titles.

So let's review how the South Went Republican.

1964, LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act.

Five southern States vote for Barry "Deep Down you Know he's Nuts" Goldwater while the rest of the country voted for LBJ.

In 1968, some Southern states went for Humphrey, some for Nixon, some for George Wallace, who ran on a racist platform. This is when Tricky Dick started employing the Southern Strategy.

1972- It worked. Nixon completely swept the South (and most of the rest of the country except MA.)

1976- The South went for Jimmy Carter, but not by as much as you think. He didn't win overwhelming votes, and the black vote is what put him over the top.

1980- The only southern state Carter won was his home state of GA.

The South has been more or less reliably Republican ever since. True, it took a while for some of those old Democrats like Robert Byrd to kick the bucket, but once they did, they were replaced by racist republicans.

 

[JoeB131]

For example, let’s make a comparison:

My (step) grandfather survived the Holocaust, barely. He had been a teacher before the Nazi genocide, and afterward….he of course had no job to return to, but his wife and young son were murdered, and his house was in shambles and all possessions stolen. He was so physically damaged that he could never eat more than a spoonful or two of food at a time. Mostly, I recall him eating soup. He was fairly tall, but I doubt he weighed even 120 pounds.

For that, he received about $3000 a year initially, which ended up being $8000 after 30 years of inflation.

Now, how does that compare to IM2 and other blacks, who not only got accepted to prestigious colleges and grad schools since the 1970s due to their race, and also enjoyed “skin color points” when it came to jobs and promotions?

Okay, a few points here.

The US wasn't responsible for the Holocaust, so why were we paying ANYTHING to Holocaust victims? (Not to mention the hundreds of billions we dump into the Zionist Entity).

On the other hand, the results of slavery can be felt by blacks to this very day.

Oh, gosh, Black people got into schools that were previously limited to white people. THAT'S TERRIBLE, in the mind of Lisa. And they got fair consideration for jobs. OH NOES.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Some slaves were abused; there were as many sadistic idiots back then as now. Most were treated better than the members of the endless waves of poor immigrants that fueled the expansion of the Northern industrial machine.

Some slaves? They were all abused. They were slaves.

Thread is stupid and people who posted it are stupid.

 

[Churchill]

You just made no sense.

You know exactly what you did.

Are you lonely and need attention or something?

 

[ding]

Please don't presume to know my presumptions. If you don't want the government involved, what is your solution?

You can't force people to be virtuous. What you can do is write laws to prevent the government from being racist. That's already been done. And for the most part people aren't racist. So nothing more needs to be done. The things you think implies racism don't. What you are really arguing for is special treatment and according to you anyone who opposes this special treatment must be racist. That's not a presumption either. You literally equated today's Republicans to yesterday's Democrats which is a ridiculous comparison that is not supported by any objective measure.

And it's not ME that presumes that you believe racism is so systemic that it can only be addressed through government intervention and anyone who disagrees must be a racist... it's logic that deduces that. If you didn't believe racism was systemic you wouldn't believe government intervention was required and you wouldn't make the ridiculous conclusion that anyone who opposed special treatment is a racist.

Your problem is that you don't know how to properly frame your beliefs. Essentially you are arguing that blacks today were disadvantaged by Democrats of old and deserve special treatment today to level the playing field. So why must someone be a racist today if they disagree with that argument. Some very well may be racist, but some aren't and oppose your desire to grant special treatment on the grounds of logic. That no one today was involved in any of the past deeds and shouldn't be awarded damages or be required to pay damages. I don't have to be a racist to believe that.

 

[alang1216]

And for the most part people aren't racist. So nothing more needs to be done. The things you think implies racism don't.

Evidence of racism in the US today is documented through significant racial disparities in the criminal justice system, economic inequality, and unequal access to housing, healthcare, and education. Data shows Black drivers are 20% more likely to be stopped by police, and Black Americans are overrepresented in arrests and incarceration. Furthermore, 75% of Black adults report experiencing discrimination, reflecting systemic barriers in employment and daily life.
Key Areas of Evidence:

• Criminal Justice System: Systemic racial profiling and disparities are prevalent; Black Americans are more than twice as likely as white people to experience threats or force during police encounters. In 2020, Black individuals were three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.
• Economic Inequality & Wealth Gap: A widening racial wealth gap exists between white and Black households, exacerbated by historical,, and ongoing, structural disadvantages.
• Voting Rights: While illegal, voter suppression efforts, such as strict voter ID laws and reduced polling locations, disproportionately affect minority communities.
• Healthcare & Discrimination: 59% of Black adults report unfair treatment in healthcare. Studies show that racial discrimination is linked to poorer health outcomes for Black and Hispanic individuals.
• Housing & Segregation: Residential segregation remains high, often limiting access to quality education, employment, and resources for Black and Latino residents.
• Discrimination Experiences: 75% of Black adults report experiencing racial discrimination, with 82% of those with a college degree reporting such incidents.

What you are really arguing for is special treatment and according to you anyone who opposes this special treatment must be racist. That's not a presumption either. You literally equated today's Republicans to yesterday's Democrats which is a ridiculous comparison that is not supported by any objective measure.

The comparison between modern Republicans and 19th-century Democrats is a subject of debate among historians and political scientists, often centering on the, "party realignment" or "party flip" that occurred over the 20th century.
Objective measures in political history show both parties have changed significantly since the 1800s, with a major realignment occurring in the mid-20th century.

Here is an analysis based on historical and political data:

19th Century Context

• Democratic Party: In the mid-to-late 19th century, the Democratic Party was the conservative party, largely advocating for states' rights, limited government intervention in the economy, and the protection of slavery before the Civil War. They were strong in the South and represented rural interests.
• Republican Party: Founded in 1854 to combat the expansion of slavery, the early Republican Party was considered liberal for its time, favoring a strong federal government, industrialization, protective tariffs, and the expansion of infrastructure.

The Realignment ("Party Flip")

• Economic Shift: By the end of the 19th century, the Republican Party became more associated with big business. By the 1920s and 1930s, the Democratic Party began to adopt a larger role for government to aid the working class.
• Social/Civil Rights Shift: In the mid-20th century, particularly with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the integration of the armed services by President Truman, the Democratic Party began to champion civil rights, causing a migration of Southern white voters to the Republican Party.
• Modern Day: Today, the Republican Party is generally considered the conservative party, favoring limited government, states' rights, and, to some extent, deregulation. The Democratic Party is considered liberal or progressive, favoring a larger government role in social and economic matters.

As of early 2026, Republican-led efforts, particularly under the second Trump administration, are actively rolling back federal civil rights protections through executive orders, Justice Department shifts, and legislative proposals. These actions target DEI initiatives, voting rights, and anti-discrimination standards in employment, education, and housing.
Key actions and initiatives identified in 2025-2026 include:

• Voting Rights Restrictions: House Republicans have proposed strict voting rules, including mandatory photo ID, elimination of universal mail-in ballots, and bans on ranked-choice voting, with threats to withhold federal funding. The Supreme Court is also reviewing cases that could further gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Anti-Discrimination Rollbacks: The administration has moved to eliminate the "disparate impact" standard, a key tool used to challenge policies that harm protected groups, impacting housing, lending, and employment.
• DEI and Federal Contracting: Executive orders aim to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, with the Justice Department shifting focus to "reverse discrimination" claims.
• Education and Labor: The Department of Education has initiated investigations into university diversity programs and proposed eliminating the federal Department of Education, which enforces civil rights in schools.
• Labor Protections: Actions have been taken to dismantle 60 years of employment discrimination enforcement, specifically affecting the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

These efforts are described by critics as a "relentless and pervasive assault on rights and freedoms", aimed at reversing decades of progress in civil rights law.

And it's not ME that presumes that you believe racism is so systemic that it can only be addressed through government intervention and anyone who disagrees must be a racist... it's logic that deduces that. If you didn't believe racism was systemic you wouldn't believe government intervention was required and you wouldn't make the ridiculous conclusion that anyone who opposed special treatment is a racist.

When did I accuse anyone of being racist? Unlike you, I can only judge people by their actions, not by any presumption of what is in their hearts.

Your problem is that you don't know how to properly frame your beliefs. Essentially you are arguing that blacks today were disadvantaged by Democrats of old and deserve special treatment today to level the playing field. So why must someone be a racist today if they disagree with that argument. Some very well may be racist, but some aren't and oppose your desire to grant special treatment on the grounds of logic.

No, you don't have to be a racist, just willfully blind.

 

[ding]

Evidence of racism in the US today is documented through significant racial disparities in the criminal justice system, economic inequality, and unequal access to housing, healthcare, and education. Data shows Black drivers are 20% more likely to be stopped by police, and Black Americans are overrepresented in arrests and incarceration. Furthermore, 75% of Black adults report experiencing discrimination, reflecting systemic barriers in employment and daily life.
Key Areas of Evidence:

• Criminal Justice System: Systemic racial profiling and disparities are prevalent; Black Americans are more than twice as likely as white people to experience threats or force during police encounters. In 2020, Black individuals were three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.
• Economic Inequality & Wealth Gap: A widening racial wealth gap exists between white and Black households, exacerbated by historical,, and ongoing, structural disadvantages.
• Voting Rights: While illegal, voter suppression efforts, such as strict voter ID laws and reduced polling locations, disproportionately affect minority communities.
• Healthcare & Discrimination: 59% of Black adults report unfair treatment in healthcare. Studies show that racial discrimination is linked to poorer health outcomes for Black and Hispanic individuals.
• Housing & Segregation: Residential segregation remains high, often limiting access to quality education, employment, and resources for Black and Latino residents.
• Discrimination Experiences: 75% of Black adults report experiencing racial discrimination, with 82% of those with a college degree reporting such incidents.

The comparison between modern Republicans and 19th-century Democrats is a subject of debate among historians and political scientists, often centering on the, "party realignment" or "party flip" that occurred over the 20th century.
Objective measures in political history show both parties have changed significantly since the 1800s, with a major realignment occurring in the mid-20th century.

Here is an analysis based on historical and political data:

19th Century Context

• Democratic Party: In the mid-to-late 19th century, the Democratic Party was the conservative party, largely advocating for states' rights, limited government intervention in the economy, and the protection of slavery before the Civil War. They were strong in the South and represented rural interests.
• Republican Party: Founded in 1854 to combat the expansion of slavery, the early Republican Party was considered liberal for its time, favoring a strong federal government, industrialization, protective tariffs, and the expansion of infrastructure.

The Realignment ("Party Flip")

• Economic Shift: By the end of the 19th century, the Republican Party became more associated with big business. By the 1920s and 1930s, the Democratic Party began to adopt a larger role for government to aid the working class.
• Social/Civil Rights Shift: In the mid-20th century, particularly with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the integration of the armed services by President Truman, the Democratic Party began to champion civil rights, causing a migration of Southern white voters to the Republican Party.
• Modern Day: Today, the Republican Party is generally considered the conservative party, favoring limited government, states' rights, and, to some extent, deregulation. The Democratic Party is considered liberal or progressive, favoring a larger government role in social and economic matters.

As of early 2026, Republican-led efforts, particularly under the second Trump administration, are actively rolling back federal civil rights protections through executive orders, Justice Department shifts, and legislative proposals. These actions target DEI initiatives, voting rights, and anti-discrimination standards in employment, education, and housing.
Key actions and initiatives identified in 2025-2026 include:

• Voting Rights Restrictions: House Republicans have proposed strict voting rules, including mandatory photo ID, elimination of universal mail-in ballots, and bans on ranked-choice voting, with threats to withhold federal funding. The Supreme Court is also reviewing cases that could further gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Anti-Discrimination Rollbacks: The administration has moved to eliminate the "disparate impact" standard, a key tool used to challenge policies that harm protected groups, impacting housing, lending, and employment.
• DEI and Federal Contracting: Executive orders aim to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, with the Justice Department shifting focus to "reverse discrimination" claims.
• Education and Labor: The Department of Education has initiated investigations into university diversity programs and proposed eliminating the federal Department of Education, which enforces civil rights in schools.
• Labor Protections: Actions have been taken to dismantle 60 years of employment discrimination enforcement, specifically affecting the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

These efforts are described by critics as a "relentless and pervasive assault on rights and freedoms", aimed at reversing decades of progress in civil rights law.


When did I accuse anyone of being racist? Unlike you, I can only judge people by their actions, not by any presumption of what is in their hearts.


No, you don't have to be a racist, just willfully blind.

You most certainly HAVE made an argument that Republicans today are racists when you compared them to Democrats of old in post #167.

Your statistics (post #274) doesn't make racism systemic nor does it justify special treatment. You are trying to define systemic racism in a vacuum. Systemic racism is what existed before the 1960's going all the way back to the middle of the 17th century when mixing of the races was forbidden.

The devil is in the details. If blacks are being treated poorly by cops, DEI won't change that nor is it even intended to address that. If there are economic disparities that doesn't mean it's due to racism. Healthcare is an issue for everyone. It's not a race issue. You keep making arguments of racism today but you really are arguing racism in the past has harmed blacks today and they need special treatment to compensate for that. What about MY arguments against that? I don't have to be willfully blind to disagree with special treatment. I don't have to be willfully blind to believe no one today was involved in any of the past deeds and shouldn't be awarded damages or be required to pay damages.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Some slaves? They were all abused. They were slaves.

Thread is stupid and people who posted it are stupid.

By abuse I mean harsh punishments that caused permanent harm. That was rare because slaves were very valuable property.

 

[Zincwarrior]

By abuse I mean harsh punishments that caused permanent harm. That was rare because slaves were very valuable property.

Rape, selling children off from their parents, etc. No it was common and horrific.

 

[Robert W]

1976- The South went for Jimmy Carter, but not by as much as you think. He didn't win overwhelming votes, and the black vote is what put him over the top.

I voted for Carter as a loyal Democrat. Then you claimed you were a Republican. So why did you flip to being a Democrat since your story told a bit back makes no sense at all.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

By abuse I mean harsh punishments that caused permanent harm. That was rare because slaves were very valuable property.

Right. Who beats work equipment to the point where it doesn’t function?

 

[Failzero]

Right. Who beats work equipment to the point where it doesn’t function?

Albanian troops and Somali Militia