Is There Any Racism In The United States?

Nazis.....socialists.....just like the party you vote for.
There are democratic socialists and then there's the national socialist movement, who are the ones who demonstrated and shouted out all those things. From the Southern Poverty Law Center this is who the NSM is:

The guiding principle of The National Socialist Movement Corporation is fighting for civil rights and self-determination of Whites in America. The Fourteen Words, ‘We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children,’ best exemplifies the mission of our movement.” – “25 Point Plan,” NSM website.

NSM hit the national news cycle in August 2013. At the time, Hatewatch and the North Dakota-based The Bismarck Tribute reported that the then-61-year-old neo-Nazi Paul Craig Cobb had concocted a scheme to build up his own white ethnostate in the small town of Leith, North Dakota (pop. 19). Cobb’s specific plan to build a “Pioneer Little Europe” originated from a 2001 proposal offered up by H. Michael Barrett. Barrett’s vision, as Hatewatch noted in an article from Aug. 22, 2013, was “to consolidate white residents in existing cities and towns and create all-white enclaves.”

The difference between them and socialists is this: from the website DifferenceBetween.net:

In Nazi Germany which embraced National Socialism, the superior abilities of Aryan citizens were exalted in an effort to appeal to individual pride. Germans wanted to take part in nation-building projects because of the feeling of patriotism, and a sense of pride in being members of the fatherland. In contrast, socialism encourages public participation in national projects by stressing on the importance of belonging to a collective, rather than operating on individual strength.

National Socialism and socialism are two different political ideologies that first emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries respectively. Socialism advocates for the equal distribution of wealth across all social classes, while National Socialism is more focused on building pride in the special abilities of the Aryan race, rather than solving the long-standing problem of inequality.​


I personally believe that today's democratic party is the one called "the big tent" party, encouraging people of all types to join and working on the problem of inequality.
 
There are democratic socialists and then there's the national socialist movement, who are the ones who demonstrated and shouted out all those things. From the Southern Poverty Law Center this is who the NSM is:
You cite the SPLC? All that shows is how gullible you are.
 
Socialism advocates for the equal distribution of wealth across all social classes,
And communism espouses an even more radical equality, but in both cases, it is a lie meant to dupe the masses into letting the uber-wealthy weaponize them against each other. Because, of course, actual real total equality can't even be defined, let alone achieved.
 
Just clicking on the link you provided I got the message" Dangerous Webpage, Blocked.


What is really dangerour is the control you psychotics have of America.


Let's prove it together......Is this what you voted for and claim you oppose racism???



"Kristen Clarke, Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, believes black people are superior to white people because they possess more melanin.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson obtained shocking statements Clarke made in 1994.

“Melanin endows blacks with greater mental, physical, and spiritual abilities — something which cannot be measured by Eurocentric standards.” Kristen Clarke wrote."







“Melanin Endows Blacks with Greater Mental, Physical and Spiritual Abilities” (VIDEO)
Kristen Clarke, Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, believes black people are superior to white people because they possess more melanin. Fox News host Tucker Carlson obtained shocking statements Clarke made in 1994. “Melanin endows blacks with greater ment ...

thespectator.info
 
There are democratic socialists and then there's the national socialist movement, who are the ones who demonstrated and shouted out all those things. From the Southern Poverty Law Center this is who the NSM is:

The guiding principle of The National Socialist Movement Corporation is fighting for civil rights and self-determination of Whites in America. The Fourteen Words, ‘We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children,’ best exemplifies the mission of our movement.” – “25 Point Plan,” NSM website.

NSM hit the national news cycle in August 2013. At the time, Hatewatch and the North Dakota-based The Bismarck Tribute reported that the then-61-year-old neo-Nazi Paul Craig Cobb had concocted a scheme to build up his own white ethnostate in the small town of Leith, North Dakota (pop. 19). Cobb’s specific plan to build a “Pioneer Little Europe” originated from a 2001 proposal offered up by H. Michael Barrett. Barrett’s vision, as Hatewatch noted in an article from Aug. 22, 2013, was “to consolidate white residents in existing cities and towns and create all-white enclaves.”

The difference between them and socialists is this: from the website DifferenceBetween.net:

In Nazi Germany which embraced National Socialism, the superior abilities of Aryan citizens were exalted in an effort to appeal to individual pride. Germans wanted to take part in nation-building projects because of the feeling of patriotism, and a sense of pride in being members of the fatherland. In contrast, socialism encourages public participation in national projects by stressing on the importance of belonging to a collective, rather than operating on individual strength.

National Socialism and socialism are two different political ideologies that first emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries respectively. Socialism advocates for the equal distribution of wealth across all social classes, while National Socialism is more focused on building pride in the special abilities of the Aryan race, rather than solving the long-standing problem of inequality.​


I personally believe that today's democratic party is the one called "the big tent" party, encouraging people of all types to join and working on the problem of inequality.



Democrats and Nazi Party of Germany .......one and the same.the
Both have put their own citizens in concentration camps.


And here are your Democrat policies.....same as those Nazis.




Government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 40% pre-war. Additionally (at least in the beginning) 80% of the budget was spent on social programs, not the hallmark of an "evil, right wing, capitalist economy." Sign in



-------------------------------------------------------------

Workers Welfare Programs:


In the best passage of Government largess, the Nazi regime fostered a purified liberal concept to enhance the living standard of German citizens across all segments of society. In order to stimulate the spirit of integrity, comradeship and happiness, Adolf Hitler fanned numerous programs and instituted strict rules for officials to carry them in eternal way.

a) Highly Subsidized International vacation trips.

b) Between 1933-1938 Strength through Joy (KDF) movement Organized 134,000 theater and concert events for 32 million people. 2 million people went on cruises and weekend trips and 11 million went on theater trips.

c) Nazis ensured that every citizen had a Radio.

d) 5 day week.

e) Free Public Health.

f) Trade Unions were banned. All workers had to join German labor Front. Strikes for higher wages were banned. People who refused to work were imprisoned. With fall in Inflation, purchasing power increased and wages actually fell.

g) Large factories had to provide rest areas, cafeterias, dressing rooms, even playing fields and swimming pools

h) They also banned "lock outs" for industries. No "reverse strikes"for them either.






1933-1945: In 1933 Hitler disbands the labor movement and strips Jews of citizenship. Jews, dissidents, and other minorities are put in concentration camps, where they are forced to work or killed outright. The Reich centralizes social programs and education as a means of control. The regime extends health insurance to retirees in 1941, and expands health care and maternity leave the following year. Commanding Heights : Germany | on PBS



During the 12 years of Hitler’s Third Reich, the National Socialists expanded and extended the welfare state to the point where over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under the auspices of the National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) by 1939, an agency that had projected a powerful image of caring and support. Welfare state - Wikipedia







The Nazi rule under Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s led to an improvement in medical care and old age provision largely financed by high taxes on the wealthy, and theft from Jews and the people of the conquered territories (Aly 2007, 7). The Viability of the European Social Model: The German Welfare State and Labor Market Reform











The Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.

The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]

The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”

These social welfare programs represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, by Götz Aly,

While underemphasized by modern historians, this socialism was stressed in many contemporaneous accounts of fascism, especially by libertarian thinkers. F.A. Hayek famously dedicated The Road to Serfdom to “the socialists of all parties”—that is, Labourites, Bolsheviks, and National Socialists.



Ludwig von Mises agreed, arguing in 1944 that “both Russia and Germany are right in calling their systems socialist.”

The Nazis themselves regarded the left-right convergence as integral to understanding fascism. Adolf Eichmann viewed National Socialism and communism as “quasi-siblings,” explaining in his memoirs that he “inclined towards the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones.” As late as 1944, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels publicly celebrated “our socialism,” reminding his war-weary subjects that Germany “alone [has] the best social welfare measures.” Contrast this, he advised, with the Jews, who were the very “incarnation of capitalism.”


Using a farrago of previously unpublished statistics, Aly describes in detail a social system larded with benefits —open only to Aryan comrades, naturally.

According to Götz Aly’s Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, most previous treatments of German complicity in genocide overlook a significant aspect of Nazi rule. Aly, a historian at the Fritz Bauer Institut in Frankfurt and the author of more than a dozen books on fascism, urges us to follow the money, arguing that the Nazis maintained popular support—a necessary precondition for the “final solution”—not because of terror or ideological affinity but through a simple system of “plunder,” “bribery,” and a generous welfare state.




To “achieve a truly socialist division of personal assets,” he writes, Hitler implemented a variety of interventionist economic policies, including price and rent controls, exorbitant corporate taxes, frequent “polemics against landlords,” subsidies to German farmers as protection “against the vagaries of weather and the world market,” and harsh taxes on capital gains, which Hitler himself had denounced as “effortless income.”

“The Nazi leadership did not transform the majority of Germans into ideological fanatics who were convinced that they were the master race,” Aly concludes. “Instead it succeeded in making them well-fed parasites.”

Hitler’s Beneficiaries demonstrates a correlation between moral collapse and government largess.

While Aly’s impressive economic history succeeds in reminding readers that Bolshevism and Nazism were, in the words of historian Richard Pipes, both “heresies of socialism,” that service is ultimately overshadowed by a needlessly radical conclusion." Hitler's Handouts
 
What is really dangerour is the control you psychotics have of America.


Let's prove it together......Is this what you voted for and claim you oppose racism???



"Kristen Clarke, Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, believes black people are superior to white people because they possess more melanin.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson obtained shocking statements Clarke made in 1994.

“Melanin endows blacks with greater mental, physical, and spiritual abilities — something which cannot be measured by Eurocentric standards.” Kristen Clarke wrote."







“Melanin Endows Blacks with Greater Mental, Physical and Spiritual Abilities” (VIDEO)
Kristen Clarke, Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, believes black people are superior to white people because they possess more melanin. Fox News host Tucker Carlson obtained shocking statements Clarke made in 1994. “Melanin endows blacks with greater ment ...

thespectator.info
Anyone who can’t see there is an effort underfoot to position whites as the “bad” race, whereby anti-white sentiment is not only tolerated but actively promoted, and blacks as poor innocents victimized by white oppression is either a mental patient - or a Biden voter.
 
Anyone who can’t see there is an effort underfoot to position whites as the “bad” race, whereby anti-white sentiment is not only tolerated but actively promoted, and blacks as poor innocents victimized by white oppression is either a mental patient - or a Biden voter.



Don't miss the tell-tale signature of the mental illness: they claim to oppose racism then vote for the party that chooses judges and officials based on skin color.

Mass Psychosis.
 
Don't miss the tell-tale signature of the mental illness: they claim to oppose racism then vote for the party that chooses judges and officials based on skin color.

Mass Psychosis.
Just between the two of us, I am most furious at my fellow Jews who have said - and they have - that we Jews should focus more on combatting racism and less on antisemitism. These are the same Jews who march alongside the BDS supporters screeching “get out Jews!” while patting themselves on the back for being so opposed to bigotry.
 
Just between the two of us, I am most furious at my fellow Jews who have said - and they have - that we Jews should focus more on combatting racism and less on antisemitism. These are the same Jews who march alongside the BDS supporters screeching “get out Jews!” while patting themselves on the back for being so opposed to bigotry.



Did you see this?



Anti-Defamation League sparks backlash after ... - TheBlaze​

https://www.theblaze.com › News

— The Anti-Defamation League drew sharp criticism this week after it was discovered the organization changed the definition of "racism" on its ...
 
Did you see this?


Anti-Defamation League sparks backlash after ... - TheBlaze

https://www.theblaze.com › News
— The Anti-Defamation League drew sharp criticism this week after it was discovered the organization changed the definition of "racism" on its ...
Yes, I did see that. How ironic that the liberal ADL, originally created to combat antisemitism, has so bought into the leftist nonsense that it is now downplaying hate crimes and other forms of bigotry against Jews because they aren’t black (for the most part).

Talk about your self-loathing Jews! The ADL is now tied with Soros.
 
Yes, I did see that. How ironic that the liberal ADL, originally created to combat antisemitism, has so bought into the leftist nonsense that it is now downplaying hate crimes and other forms of bigotry against Jews because they aren’t black (for the most part).

Talk about your self-loathing Jews! The ADL is now tied with Soros.
The Left.

They've taken over.


"Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths."
 
The Left.

They've taken over.


"Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths."
What is happening is the stuff of nightmares.
 
Democrats and Nazi Party of Germany .......one and the same.the
Both have put their own citizens in concentration camps.


And here are your Democrat policies.....same as those Nazis.




Government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 40% pre-war. Additionally (at least in the beginning) 80% of the budget was spent on social programs, not the hallmark of an "evil, right wing, capitalist economy." Sign in



-------------------------------------------------------------

Workers Welfare Programs:


In the best passage of Government largess, the Nazi regime fostered a purified liberal concept to enhance the living standard of German citizens across all segments of society. In order to stimulate the spirit of integrity, comradeship and happiness, Adolf Hitler fanned numerous programs and instituted strict rules for officials to carry them in eternal way.

a) Highly Subsidized International vacation trips.

b) Between 1933-1938 Strength through Joy (KDF) movement Organized 134,000 theater and concert events for 32 million people. 2 million people went on cruises and weekend trips and 11 million went on theater trips.

c) Nazis ensured that every citizen had a Radio.

d) 5 day week.

e) Free Public Health.

f) Trade Unions were banned. All workers had to join German labor Front. Strikes for higher wages were banned. People who refused to work were imprisoned. With fall in Inflation, purchasing power increased and wages actually fell.

g) Large factories had to provide rest areas, cafeterias, dressing rooms, even playing fields and swimming pools

h) They also banned "lock outs" for industries. No "reverse strikes"for them either.






1933-1945: In 1933 Hitler disbands the labor movement and strips Jews of citizenship. Jews, dissidents, and other minorities are put in concentration camps, where they are forced to work or killed outright. The Reich centralizes social programs and education as a means of control. The regime extends health insurance to retirees in 1941, and expands health care and maternity leave the following year. Commanding Heights : Germany | on PBS



During the 12 years of Hitler’s Third Reich, the National Socialists expanded and extended the welfare state to the point where over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under the auspices of the National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) by 1939, an agency that had projected a powerful image of caring and support. Welfare state - Wikipedia







The Nazi rule under Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s led to an improvement in medical care and old age provision largely financed by high taxes on the wealthy, and theft from Jews and the people of the conquered territories (Aly 2007, 7). The Viability of the European Social Model: The German Welfare State and Labor Market Reform











The Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.

The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]

The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”

These social welfare programs represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, by Götz Aly,

While underemphasized by modern historians, this socialism was stressed in many contemporaneous accounts of fascism, especially by libertarian thinkers. F.A. Hayek famously dedicated The Road to Serfdom to “the socialists of all parties”—that is, Labourites, Bolsheviks, and National Socialists.



Ludwig von Mises agreed, arguing in 1944 that “both Russia and Germany are right in calling their systems socialist.”

The Nazis themselves regarded the left-right convergence as integral to understanding fascism. Adolf Eichmann viewed National Socialism and communism as “quasi-siblings,” explaining in his memoirs that he “inclined towards the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones.” As late as 1944, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels publicly celebrated “our socialism,” reminding his war-weary subjects that Germany “alone [has] the best social welfare measures.” Contrast this, he advised, with the Jews, who were the very “incarnation of capitalism.”


Using a farrago of previously unpublished statistics, Aly describes in detail a social system larded with benefits —open only to Aryan comrades, naturally.

According to Götz Aly’s Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, most previous treatments of German complicity in genocide overlook a significant aspect of Nazi rule. Aly, a historian at the Fritz Bauer Institut in Frankfurt and the author of more than a dozen books on fascism, urges us to follow the money, arguing that the Nazis maintained popular support—a necessary precondition for the “final solution”—not because of terror or ideological affinity but through a simple system of “plunder,” “bribery,” and a generous welfare state.




To “achieve a truly socialist division of personal assets,” he writes, Hitler implemented a variety of interventionist economic policies, including price and rent controls, exorbitant corporate taxes, frequent “polemics against landlords,” subsidies to German farmers as protection “against the vagaries of weather and the world market,” and harsh taxes on capital gains, which Hitler himself had denounced as “effortless income.”

“The Nazi leadership did not transform the majority of Germans into ideological fanatics who were convinced that they were the master race,” Aly concludes. “Instead it succeeded in making them well-fed parasites.”

Hitler’s Beneficiaries demonstrates a correlation between moral collapse and government largess.

While Aly’s impressive economic history succeeds in reminding readers that Bolshevism and Nazism were, in the words of historian Richard Pipes, both “heresies of socialism,” that service is ultimately overshadowed by a needlessly radical conclusion." Hitler's Handouts
You sure seem to be hung up on Hitler and the Nazis. That's what you always post. Would you share your personal, individual thoughts about what is wrong with with a government taking care of its people - like with Social Security and Medicare. What is wrong with people getting an equal opportunity to succeed. I have read that lots of the social programs in the U.S. were pretty widely accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike, when they benefitted the white folks. Then some began to object when they were offered to black folks. They believed since it was their country, only they should receive the benefits. Thoughts?(without sending me a hundred links from sources I do not consider truthful, or unbiased)
 
social programs in the U.S. were pretty widely accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike, when they benefitted the white folks. Then some began to object when they were offered to black folks.
Damn, you are one gullible white woman. Name a social welfare program that specifically excluded blacks
 
You sure seem to be hung up on Hitler and the Nazis. That's what you always post. Would you share your personal, individual thoughts about what is wrong with with a government taking care of its people - like with Social Security and Medicare. What is wrong with people getting an equal opportunity to succeed. I have read that lots of the social programs in the U.S. were pretty widely accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike, when they benefitted the white folks. Then some began to object when they were offered to black folks. They believed since it was their country, only they should receive the benefits. Thoughts?(without sending me a hundred links from sources I do not consider truthful, or unbiased)



I provided two specific examples of the party you vote for choosing their champions based on the color of their skin.....and you deny that is racism, and claim to abhor racism.


I said you are psychotic, and suffer that same dementia that infected the Nazis of Germany.


They couldn't see it, either.


I'm not optimistic about your recovery, nor that America will revover from the damage you and your party are doing.
 
1643985116841.png
 
Damn, you are one gullible white woman. Name a social welfare program that specifically excluded blacks
I’m so glad you responded to this the way you did. It gives me a chance to respond and explain. Perhaps better wording would have been that some white folks objected when they were convinced by politicians that blacks were benefitting more or even too much from social programs.

As the excerpts of articles I will share show, although benefits were eventually offered to blacks by law – the actual fleshing out of the law proved to be quite discriminatory in its actual implementation. It was possible to “technically” include them, while “practically” excluding them.


Racism in Public Benefit Programs: Where Do We Go from Here?

By Madison Allen of the Center for Law and Social Policy


For decades, programs like Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have provided essential support for families with low incomes. At the same time, these programs have reinforced structures of oppression. It is critical that we understand the history of the safety net in the United States because, without recognition of past and present harm, we run the serious risk of complicity in upholding systems of white supremacy.

Many scholars have written at length about racism and the history of public benefit programs and welfare reform in America. From "mother’s pensions" in the 1900s used to exclude Black women to Reagan’s "Welfare Queen" narrative in the 1980s to Clinton’s 1996 racialized welfare reform and workfare programs, false racist narratives have long been applied to people experiencing poverty. As Johnnie Tillmon noted in 1972, "we've been trained to believe that the only reason people are on welfare is because there's something wrong with their character." For decades, these narratives have served as dog whistles that are employed to garner support to cut funding and to restrict the eligibility for these programs with direct harms to both people of color and white people with low incomes.

Many of the white supremacist structures historically embedded in public benefit programs remain in place today. Disguised under terminology like "work requirements," "family caps," "drug testing," and "resource limits" – these polices are fundamentally rooted in oppression, paternalism, and control of Black and Brown lives. The policies themselves reinforce misconceptions about beneficiaries, suggesting that individuals with low incomes must be coerced to work and avoid drug use. Although whites are the largest group of beneficiaries when it comes to government programs supporting basic needs, policies that frame benefits access in terms of "deserving" versus "undeserving" rely upon and perpetuate false narratives about benefit recipients. While many of these policies appear race neutral, in practice they discriminate by failing to acknowledge the skewed racial realities of the U.S. criminal justice system…

SOC 313- Social Welfare
Welfare expands in the 1960s


Migration of African Americans from the rural South, and its effects

Migration brought blacks to the cities. It wasn’t an overnight process, but there were some broad trends going on, from which we’re still feeling effects today–modernization of agriculture replaced low-wage workers and manual labor with machinery. Southern agriculture was traditionally the most labor-intensive, having been developed on the backs of African slaves. When slavery was abolished, low paying farm jobs were still the easiest for many blacks in the South to get. Welfare law was used to enforce low-wage work in the fields during the growing and harvest seasons. Mechanization of farming may have increased productivity on farms–at least until one starts to calculate the costs of using fossil fuels to achieve that productivity–but it also uprooted the labor force, mostly black. This wasn’t entirely a bad thing. Many were practically indentured servants, tied to their employers through debt, or because of residency laws and the difficulty of relocating and getting welfare benefits. This doesn’t necessarily mean, however, that there were limitless opportunities waiting for those who did migrate (and 20 million or so did migrate between the 40s and the 60s).

Several mechanisms were used to enforce blacks’ indentured servitude:

kicking people off the welfare rolls during the growing season, when labor demands were high (and an organized workforce could bargain for better wages, conditions), meaning many had little choice but to work in the fields, even mothers with children at home

residence laws’ (requiring people to live for a certain period of time before being eligible for assistance) were used to keep people from moving and collecting welfare in another location

benefits were adjusted to local labor markets (remember the principle that welfare should be less appealing than the lowest employment opportunities)–so, where were they higher, Alabama or Manhattan?

poor families with two parents were excluded from receiving AFDC until 1961 (using the ‘able-bodied’ argument)

black single mothers were discriminated against:

midnight raids and ‘man in the house’ rules
(if caught with another man in the house, she would lose benefits)–totally unconstitutional, but standard practice in the South

Good housekeeping’ ‘rules’ that allowed welfare workers to take a family off the rolls if they deemed a house to be ‘poorly maintained’ (and most houses have a few corners that could be used as exhibit A in a white glove test …)

well over 50% of black women and children were in the workforce–few if any safeguards on child labor existed for blacks (what about migrant workers today?)

‘illegitimacy,’ birth out of wedlock, could cost a woman her assistance

blacks were often flat-out denied welfare benefits to which they were enitled

‘work training’
was often required in low-wage sectors (menial jobs, such as dishwashing, housecleaning)

the ‘employable mother rule required black women to work in the fields if there was work to be done and a labor shortage

unless they could show proof of employment, they could be denied other assistance–gues what type of employment was available??



Migration was mainly to the Industrial North and Northeast (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, DC), but also the Midwest (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland) and even the West (Los Angeles) and large Southern cities (Atlanta). Welfare agencies were not extremely receptive to the new immigrants. Their job opportunities were limited, and racism, though perhaps less overt and blatant than in the South, still limited blacks’ employment opportunities–there were economic and social inequalities blacks faced in cities. And remember that many were coming from rural areas–this was a traumatic uprooting of the population.

Several factors converged to create political and social unrest. For blacks, there were few opportunities. They faced racism, denial of welfare benefits, poverty, etc. But, the 1960s were a period of sweeping social change. The injustices of racism led to a more vocal and successful Civil Rights Movement. The U.S. Government was escalating its involvement in Vietnam. Mass migration and lack of opportunity had led to mass poverty in large cities, decaying neighborhoods–the same sort of process goes on in much of the third world today. Cities became hotbeds of protest, and the first efforts of the government to count how many poor there were, or even define what poverty was, were being made. In essence, the Kennedy Administration had given voice to the poor, among which blacks were disproportionately represented. It may be quite true that the Kennedy Administration was committed to addressing poverty, but the authors would point out that it was also in their self-interests to do something about the unrest, before large cities became ungovernable.

The Feds step in again–The Great Society

As happened in the 1930s, the Federal Government intervened–unrest had created a situation of high unemployment, this time driven by modernization, rather than economic depression. This time the target was the inner cities–there was a definite urban bias to these welfare initiatives, towards metropolitan areas (especially the largest). Welfare agencies had successfully excluded many blacks and other poor groups from receiving benefits to which they were entitled. Racism was pervasive–there were (lower-paying) jobs for blacks, and there were jobs for whites (for instance, in the welfare system), but for those who couldn’t find work, there was little assurance that government efforts, funded through traditional state and local channels of relief, would reach non-white populations in inner cities. Racial tensions escalated dramatically, and law enforcement as often as not exacerbated racial tensions.

The Kennedy (and later Johnson Administration) perceived there to be some serious problems (of both a political and social nature), and set about devising strategies to address them. They declared a ‘war’ on poverty. Under Johnson this was referred to as the ‘Great Society.’ From a policy standpoint, the Great Society included many Federal interventions to help blacks get more from local government. Many of these programs essentially bypassed local government to do this. In other words, the feds intervened because local governments were not ensuring that non-white groups were receiving equal treatment in the welfare system. From a political standpoint, the government needed to address urban unrest. By the mid 1960s, there were riots in major cities over working and living conditions among the poor. A couple questions to consider: 1) Why would the feds bypass local government? 2) There were plenty of existing programs to deal with the problems being encountered in the inner cities–why were these not used to channel relief efforts?

Remember the political nature of welfare. The Feds were addressing poverty, yes, but also had political motivations, some of which included:

building a constituency-jobs at local agencies were staffed by blacks (rather than traditional social services taking over these tasks), which would not have been the case with social services (wouldn’t have transformed hiring practices …). This is good for votes come election time. At the same time, obviously it’s empowering to African Americans in the cities.

an effort to undercut state and local agencies, and build a national network between the federal government and local ‘ghettos.’ Again, there are political benefits to this beyond helping a disenfranchised group.

There was a general sentiment that local politicians, given money from the feds for inner city blacks, would find other ways to spend it. Racism was still rampant, and opportunities for blacks extremely limited. Their reaction to black migration and riots would tend to support some level of suspicion on handing them blank checks to deal with the problems. The Administration sought ways to retain more control over how money was spent.

According to the authors, what made the Great Society programs so unique was that they used federal resources to ‘unlock’ other welfare resources that had been denied blacks for decades. Relief efforts often took the form of ‘community action programs.’

Some outcomes


integration of blacks into political processes in many cities (first black mayors came out of this era) it did change power relations in the cities, gave blacks a voice (not always a diverse voice, but nevertheless it was something)

expanded welfare expenditures. Great Society money was limited, but it allowed blacks to exercise their rights to welfare, to ‘entitlements’. For example, in major cities, AFDC caseloads grew 30-40% in inner cities, less than 10% in other areas. People who had long been denied welfare benefits were now receiving them–the Great Society ‘unlocked’ welfare funds whose use had been restricted, even among the poor whites or other groups. In addition, two substantial entitlement programs–Medicare (old-age health insurance) and Food Stamps (food assistance)–were both created during the 1960s. This would eventually lead to movements to find new ways to restrict and limit the use of public welfare . . . in other words, the pendulum would swing back . . .

institutional changes (largely through legal action). As mentioned previously, legal action was more effective when it addressed blacks and welfare recipients as a class, and often times the cases that were argued were those that would push back restrictions to this class. Successful class action suits led to:

Repeal of residency laws
Repeal of man-in-the-house laws
’employable mother’ rules were overturned
welfare agencies’ discretion to deny benefits to certain groups was severely curtailed. Some of the specific strategies addressed included:
arbitrary terminations
jailing male welfare recipients who refuse to work
midnight raids
agencies’ denial of recipients’ rights to representation









 
You sure seem to be hung up on Hitler and the Nazis. That's what you always post. Would you share your personal, individual thoughts about what is wrong with with a government taking care of its people - like with Social Security and Medicare. What is wrong with people getting an equal opportunity to succeed. I have read that lots of the social programs in the U.S. were pretty widely accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike, when they benefitted the white folks. Then some began to object when they were offered to black folks. They believed since it was their country, only they should receive the benefits. Thoughts?(without sending me a hundred links from sources I do not consider truthful, or unbiased)
Do you tell blacks they “seem hung up“ on slavery and Jim Crow?

And people ALREADY have an equal opportunity to succeed. In fact, blacks are given MORE than an equal opportunity when it comes to admission to colleges and grad programs - being accepted with grades and scores that would have them laughed out of the place if they were white.

Same with job openings and promotions in almost every major city in the country - DC, Chicago, LA, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore - you name it. If a white and a black of equal credentials both present for a job, it will be given to the black.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top