McAuliffe call parents who object to liberal reading list “racists”

the white man was just better at it than the Indians so people hate them for it.
Its racist and ignorant but whachagunnado? :dunno:
 
So who forced this?
The U.S. Government used treaties as one means to displace Indians from their tribal lands, a mechanism that was strengthened with the Removal Act of 1830. In cases where this failed, the government sometimes violated both treaties and Supreme Court rulings to facilitate the spread of European Americans westward across the continent.
 
Possibly, but consider why that could be. This whole idea of basic income (like the Roman dole of wine and bread and oil in a gravely overpopulated City without enough employment) is to provide for the poor so they won't riot constantly, recognizing they just really aren't able to take care of themselves.

If most blacks really just can't do, and that may have become clear to the leftwing leaders after 45 years of the Great Society failed, failed, and failed again, and what is substituted is crime and more crime, they may be considering an alternative. Given that Back to Africa isn't really available, I'm not sure that a basic income isn't one solution; it would be better combined with birth controls, obviously. That's what "reparations" would really be, a basic income to make up for the fact that many of them can't do better. It's a staple in a lot of modern sci-fi; a lot of people sit around living on Basic, and if they can't get out of that trap, well, they can't, that's all.

It's what the Australians are doing: I've read that the aborigines are the lowest IQ people (by some distance; really retarded) in the world, and the rest of the country just sort of pays their way. Some peoples DID get stuck in an evolutionary cul-de-sac, and we made slaves out of the African ones because we could; bad move, obviously, because nothing was wrong with their ability to reproduce, so now they have taken over much of this hemisphere.
That’s an interesting take on The Great Society, but if you look at it as an acknowledgement that blacks simply need “more government help” because they are less capable, as opposed to suffering from racism, consider what it says and predicts about reparations (should they ever get passed).

Blacks have lost headway since the 1960s, at least in the non- Jim Crow states. When I was a child back in those days, we had black children in school with us, they were almost all from two-parent families, and there were lots of black-owned businesses. Then….along came LBJ (a known racist), who created a program of giveaways that effectively erased the need for black women to marry the fathers of their children, and the black illegitimacy rate skyrocketed.

Was this by intent? Some say yes…..it was a way to keep black families broken. Others say it was just a way to buy black votes. Either way, blacks have lost a lot of ground since LBJ’s Great Society, even with affirmative action giving another big hand up.

Now what does this mean for reparations? Is it a way for Dems to say that blacks just can’t make it on their own without added help? And will it have the effect that LBJ did - making things worse for blacks, and weakening the family structure further?

This is why middle-class blacks, who have strong families and earn decent livings, are opposed to the idea of reparations. Aside from them recognizing how unfair it is, it can send the message that blacks need extra help to make it in this country, whereas whites do not. Some might say that is due to racism, but others may say it’s an admission that blacks, whether by nature of by choices, aren’t as good as white people. It will lead to the very racism that reparations is supposed to compensate for.
 

Forum List

Back
Top