Zone1 Racism is the biggest scam in American history.

[MaryL]

Prove me wrong. (Side note: USMB and American society had this thing called: "Post racialism") Where did that go? Post racialism just evaporated and forgotten like it never happened?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Prove me wrong. (Side note: USMB and American society had this thing called: "Post racialism") Where did that go? Post racialism just evaporated and forgotten like it never happened?

Here is the "Scam" about racism in America. And many other parts of the world.

Watch and learn:

 

[excalibur]

Prior to Øbama, race relations were the best probably ever. Øbama wrecked that.

 

[1srelluc]

Blah, "racism" is just a lame social construct. In fact it was appropriated by whites from native americans and applied to the blacks.

It was originally coined to "help" the Native Americans but it was not the kind of "help" they were looking for. It turned out only to be used against the NAs for control and subjugation to white culture

So what you have was a stolen term bastardized three ways from Sunday still used as a means of control....It's rubbish and anyone that even uses the term is stupider for doing so.

 

[pknopp]

Prior to Øbama, race relations were the best probably ever. Øbama wrecked that.

Well yeah, but probably not for the reasons you would think.

 

[MaryL]

Well, hello! What the hell happened to post racialism in 2017? It just never happened. This deserves a separate thread.

 

[Rigby5]

{...
Post-racialism is a term that refers to the idea that racial prejudice and discrimination no longer exist or are no longer major social problems. Post-racialism is often associated with the election of Barack Obama as the first African American president of the United States. However, post-racialism is also criticized as a way of ignoring or denying the persistence of racism and racial inequality in society.
...}

Obviously racism never went away, so "post-racialism" never existed.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Blah, "racism" is just a lame social construct. In fact it was appropriated by whites from native americans and applied to the blacks.

[snipped]

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it anymore true the last you posted it than it was the first time you posted it. Furthermore your lack of knowledge regarding actual American history is beyond appalling. White racism against people of African descent in the United States was legislated into reality, and then enforced by those those laws, court rulings, policies, societal mores, etc. that followed. The EVIDENCE MaryL is that there were laws passed specifically to restrict the rights and ability to prosper of Black people that only applied to them but not to white people.

The Southern “Black Codes” of 1865-66​

The end of the Civil War marked the end of slavery for 4 million black Southerners. But the war also left them landless and with little money to support themselves. White Southerners, seeking to control the freedmen (former slaves), devised special state law codes. Many Northerners saw these codes as blatant attempts to restore slavery.​

Constitutional Rights Foundation​

​

Five days after the Civil War ended, President Abraham Lincoln was shot. He died on April 15, 1865, and Vice President Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency. The task of reuniting the nation fell on his shoulders. A Southerner, Johnson favored readmitting the Southern states as quickly as possible into the Union. He appointed military governors who held complete power in the former Confederate states until new civilian governments could be organized.​

​

Little thought had been given to the needs of the newly emancipated slaves. Shortly before the end of the war, Congress created the Freedmen’s Bureau. It furnished food and medical aid to the former slaves. It also established schools for the freedmen. By 1870, a quarter million black children and adults attended more than 4,000 of these schools in the South.​

​

The Freedmen’s Bureau also helped the former slaves in the workplace. It tried to make sure that the former slaves received fair wages and freely chose their employers. The bureau created special courts to settle disputes between black workers and their white employers. It could also intervene in other cases that threatened the rights of freedmen.​

​

White Southerners resented being ruled by Union military governors and Freedmen’s Bureau officials. They sought to restore self-rule. During the summer and fall of 1865, most of the old Confederate states held constitutional conventions. President Johnson’s reconstruction plan permitted only white persons to vote for convention delegates or to participate in the framing of the new state governments. Not surprisingly, none of the state conventions considered extending the right to vote to the freedmen. South Carolina’s provisional governor declared at his state constitutional convention that “this is a white man’s government.”​

​

By the end of the year, most of the South had held elections under the new state constitutions. Often, ex-Confederate leaders won elections for state government offices and for U.S. Congress.​

​

The newly formed state legislatures quickly authorized many needed public projects and the taxes to pay for them. Among these projects was the creation, for the first time in the South, of free public education. But the public schools excluded black children.​

​

The state legislatures also began to pass laws limiting the freedom of the former slaves. These laws mirrored those of colonial times, which placed severe restrictions on both slaves and emancipated blacks. Neither of these groups could vote, serve on juries, travel freely, or work in occupations of their choice. Even their marriages were outside the law.​

​

The white legislators saw little reason not to continue the tradition of unequal treatment of black persons. An editorial in the Macon, Georgia, Daily Telegraph reflected the widely held opinion of the white South at this time: “There is such a radical difference in the mental and moral [nature] of the white and black race, that it would be impossible to secure order in a mixed community by the same [law].”​

​

White Southerners also feared that if freedmen did not work for white landowners, the agricultural economy of the South would collapse. During the last months of 1865, a rumor spread among freedmen: The federal government was going to grant “40 acres and a mule” to every ex-slave family on Christmas Day. Although the federal government had confiscated some Confederate lands and given them to freed slaves, it never planned to do this on a massive scale. Nonetheless, expecting their own plots of land, blacks in large numbers refused to sign work contracts with white landowners for the new year. At the same time, Southern whites passed around their own rumor that blacks would rise in rebellion when the free land failed to appear on Christmas Day.​

​

All these economic worries, prejudices, and fears helped produce the first Black Codes of 1865. These codes consisted of special laws that applied only to black persons. The first Black Code, enacted by Mississippi, proved harsh and vindictive. South Carolina followed with a code only slightly less harsh, but more comprehensive in regulating the lives of “persons of color.”​

The South Carolina Black Code​

South Carolina’s Black Code applied only to “persons of color,” defined as including anyone with more than one-eighth Negro blood. Its major features included the following:​

​

1. Civil Rights​

The Southern Black Codes defined the rights of freedmen. They mainly restricted their rights. But the codes did grant black persons a few more civil rights than they possessed before the Civil War. South Carolina’s code declared that “persons of color” now had the right “to acquire, own and dispose of property; to make contracts; to enjoy the fruits of their labor; to sue and be sued; and to receive protection under the law in their persons and property.” Also, for the first time, the law recognized the marriages of black persons and the legitimacy of their children. But the law went on to state that, “Marriage between a white person and a person of color shall be illegal and void.”​

​

2. Labor Contracts​

The South Carolina code included a contract form for black “servants” who agreed to work for white “masters.” The form required that the wages and the term of service be in writing. The contract had to be witnessed and then approved by a judge. Other provisions of the code listed the rights and obligations of the servant and master. Black servants had to reside on the employer’s property, remain quiet and orderly, work from sunup to sunset except on Sundays, and not leave the premises or receive visitors without the master’s permission. Masters could “moderately” whip servants under 18 to discipline them. Whipping older servants required a judge’s order. Time lost due to illness would be deducted from the servant’s wages. Servants who quit before the end date of their labor contract forfeited their wages and could be arrested and returned to their masters by a judge’s order. On the other hand, the law protected black servants from being forced to do “unreasonable” tasks.​

​

3. Vagrancy​

All Southern Black Codes relied on vagrancy laws to pressure freedmen to sign labor contracts. South Carolina’s code did not limit these laws to unemployed persons, but included others such as peddlers and gamblers. The code provided that vagrants could be arrested and imprisoned at hard labor. But the county sheriff could “hire out” black vagrants to a white employer to work off their punishment. The courts customarily waived such punishment for white vagrants, allowing them to take an oath of poverty instead.​

​

4. Apprenticeship​

Southern Black Codes provided another source of labor for white employers—black orphans and the children of vagrants or other destitute parents. The South Carolina code authorized courts to apprentice such black children, even against their will, to an employer until age 21 for males and 18 for females. Masters had the right to inflict moderate punishment on their apprentices and to recapture runaways. But the code also required masters to provide food and clothing to their apprentices, teach them a trade, and send them to school.​

​

5. Courts, Crimes, and Punishments​

South Carolina’s Black Code established a racially separate court system for all civil and criminal cases that involved a black plaintiff or defendant. It allowed black witnesses to testify in court, but only in cases affecting “the person or property of a person of color.” Crimes that whites believed freedmen might commit, such as rebellion, arson, burglary, and assaulting a white woman, carried harsh penalties. Most of these crimes carried the death penalty for blacks, but not for whites. Punishments for minor offenses committed by blacks could result in “hiring out” or whipping, penalties rarely imposed on white lawbreakers.​

​

6. Other Restrictions​

South Carolina’s code reflected the white obsession with controlling the former slaves. It banned black people from possessing most firearms, making or selling liquor, and coming into the state without first posting a bond for “good behavior.” The code made it illegal for them to sell any farm products without written permission from their white employer, supposedly to guard against stealing. Also, blacks could not practice any occupation, except farmer or servant under contract, without getting an annual license from a judge.​

Congressional Reconstruction​

The Mississippi and South Carolina Black Codes of 1865 provoked a storm of protest among many Northerners. They accused Southern whites of trying to restore slavery. Congress refused to seat Southerners elected under the new state constitutions. A special congressional committee investigated whether white Southern Reconstruction should be allowed to continue.​

In the South, the Mississippi and South Carolina Black Codes never went into effect. The Union military governors and the Freedmen’s Bureau immediately declared them invalid. Fearing that their self-rule was in jeopardy, the two states revised and moderated their codes. Christmas Day came without either the free land that freedmen had hoped for or the bloody rebellion that whites had dreaded. Instead, as the new year began, freedmen all over the South signed labor contracts and went back to work.​

​

Under the less tense conditions in 1866, most other former Confederate states wrote Black Codes that paid more attention to the legal equality of whites and blacks. But the belated efforts of the white Southerners to treat the freedmen more fairly under the law came too late.​

Along with the Black Codes, other events helped alter the course of Reconstruction: The 14th Amendment passed, and a new Congress hostile to the South was elected. This Congress took control of Reconstruction. When President Johnson vetoed its Reconstruction legislation, Congress overrode his vetoes. The battles with Johnson led ultimately in 1868 to his impeachment by the House, the first impeachment of a president in American history. (The Senate failed to convict him by one vote.)​

​

Under the direction of Congress, most Southern states held new constitutional conventions in 1867–68. This time the freedmen voted and participated. The resulting new state constitutions guaranteed the right of black adult males to vote and run for public office. For the first time, some blacks won election to Southern state legislatures and to Congress. By 1868, most states had repealed the remains of discriminatory Black Code laws.​

​

But Reconstruction did not last long. By 1877, it was dead. The North had lost interest in helping Southern blacks. Many factors had helped kill Reconstruction: economic troubles in the country, a more conservative consensus within the nation, a general feeling in the country that Reconstruction had failed, the resurgence of the Democratic party, and a growing respectability for racist attitudes.​

​

Southern states began trying to end black voting. By 1910, all Southern states had excluded blacks from voting. In the 1890s, Southern states enacted a new form of Black Codes, called “Jim Crow” laws. These laws made it illegal for blacks and whites to share public facilities. This meant that blacks and whites had to use separate schools, hospitals, libraries, restaurants, hotels, bathrooms, and drinking fountains. These laws stayed in effect until the 1950s and 1960s, when the civil rights movement launched an all-out campaign against them. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court declared these laws unconstitutional, and the U.S. Congress passed Civil Rights legislation ensuring equal rights for all citizens.​

For Discussion and Writing​

1. Why did white Southerners believe that a separate code of laws applying only to “persons of color” was necessary?
2. Northerners protested that the Black Codes of South Carolina and other Southern states attempted to restore slavery. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
3. Do you think that the U.S. government should have confiscated lands owned by Confederate leaders to provide “40 acres and a mule” to the landless freedmen? Why or why not?

​

 

[Lisa558]

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it anymore true the last you posted it than it was the first time you posted it. Furthermore your lack of knowledge regarding actual American history is beyond appalling. White racism against people of African descent in the United States was legislated into reality, and then enforced by those those laws, court rulings, policies, societal mores, etc. that followed. The EVIDENCE MaryL is that there were laws passed specifically to restrict the rights and ability to prosper of Black people that only applied to them but not to white people.

The Southern “Black Codes” of 1865-66​

The end of the Civil War marked the end of slavery for 4 million black Southerners. But the war also left them landless and with little money to support themselves. White Southerners, seeking to control the freedmen (former slaves), devised special state law codes. Many Northerners saw these codes as blatant attempts to restore slavery.​

Constitutional Rights Foundation​

​

Five days after the Civil War ended, President Abraham Lincoln was shot. He died on April 15, 1865, and Vice President Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency. The task of reuniting the nation fell on his shoulders. A Southerner, Johnson favored readmitting the Southern states as quickly as possible into the Union. He appointed military governors who held complete power in the former Confederate states until new civilian governments could be organized.​

​

Little thought had been given to the needs of the newly emancipated slaves. Shortly before the end of the war, Congress created the Freedmen’s Bureau. It furnished food and medical aid to the former slaves. It also established schools for the freedmen. By 1870, a quarter million black children and adults attended more than 4,000 of these schools in the South.​

​

The Freedmen’s Bureau also helped the former slaves in the workplace. It tried to make sure that the former slaves received fair wages and freely chose their employers. The bureau created special courts to settle disputes between black workers and their white employers. It could also intervene in other cases that threatened the rights of freedmen.​

​

White Southerners resented being ruled by Union military governors and Freedmen’s Bureau officials. They sought to restore self-rule. During the summer and fall of 1865, most of the old Confederate states held constitutional conventions. President Johnson’s reconstruction plan permitted only white persons to vote for convention delegates or to participate in the framing of the new state governments. Not surprisingly, none of the state conventions considered extending the right to vote to the freedmen. South Carolina’s provisional governor declared at his state constitutional convention that “this is a white man’s government.”​

​

By the end of the year, most of the South had held elections under the new state constitutions. Often, ex-Confederate leaders won elections for state government offices and for U.S. Congress.​

​

The newly formed state legislatures quickly authorized many needed public projects and the taxes to pay for them. Among these projects was the creation, for the first time in the South, of free public education. But the public schools excluded black children.​

​

The state legislatures also began to pass laws limiting the freedom of the former slaves. These laws mirrored those of colonial times, which placed severe restrictions on both slaves and emancipated blacks. Neither of these groups could vote, serve on juries, travel freely, or work in occupations of their choice. Even their marriages were outside the law.​

​

The white legislators saw little reason not to continue the tradition of unequal treatment of black persons. An editorial in the Macon, Georgia, Daily Telegraph reflected the widely held opinion of the white South at this time: “There is such a radical difference in the mental and moral [nature] of the white and black race, that it would be impossible to secure order in a mixed community by the same [law].”​

​

White Southerners also feared that if freedmen did not work for white landowners, the agricultural economy of the South would collapse. During the last months of 1865, a rumor spread among freedmen: The federal government was going to grant “40 acres and a mule” to every ex-slave family on Christmas Day. Although the federal government had confiscated some Confederate lands and given them to freed slaves, it never planned to do this on a massive scale. Nonetheless, expecting their own plots of land, blacks in large numbers refused to sign work contracts with white landowners for the new year. At the same time, Southern whites passed around their own rumor that blacks would rise in rebellion when the free land failed to appear on Christmas Day.​

​

All these economic worries, prejudices, and fears helped produce the first Black Codes of 1865. These codes consisted of special laws that applied only to black persons. The first Black Code, enacted by Mississippi, proved harsh and vindictive. South Carolina followed with a code only slightly less harsh, but more comprehensive in regulating the lives of “persons of color.”​

The South Carolina Black Code​

South Carolina’s Black Code applied only to “persons of color,” defined as including anyone with more than one-eighth Negro blood. Its major features included the following:​

​

1. Civil Rights​

The Southern Black Codes defined the rights of freedmen. They mainly restricted their rights. But the codes did grant black persons a few more civil rights than they possessed before the Civil War. South Carolina’s code declared that “persons of color” now had the right “to acquire, own and dispose of property; to make contracts; to enjoy the fruits of their labor; to sue and be sued; and to receive protection under the law in their persons and property.” Also, for the first time, the law recognized the marriages of black persons and the legitimacy of their children. But the law went on to state that, “Marriage between a white person and a person of color shall be illegal and void.”​

​

2. Labor Contracts​

The South Carolina code included a contract form for black “servants” who agreed to work for white “masters.” The form required that the wages and the term of service be in writing. The contract had to be witnessed and then approved by a judge. Other provisions of the code listed the rights and obligations of the servant and master. Black servants had to reside on the employer’s property, remain quiet and orderly, work from sunup to sunset except on Sundays, and not leave the premises or receive visitors without the master’s permission. Masters could “moderately” whip servants under 18 to discipline them. Whipping older servants required a judge’s order. Time lost due to illness would be deducted from the servant’s wages. Servants who quit before the end date of their labor contract forfeited their wages and could be arrested and returned to their masters by a judge’s order. On the other hand, the law protected black servants from being forced to do “unreasonable” tasks.​

​

3. Vagrancy​

All Southern Black Codes relied on vagrancy laws to pressure freedmen to sign labor contracts. South Carolina’s code did not limit these laws to unemployed persons, but included others such as peddlers and gamblers. The code provided that vagrants could be arrested and imprisoned at hard labor. But the county sheriff could “hire out” black vagrants to a white employer to work off their punishment. The courts customarily waived such punishment for white vagrants, allowing them to take an oath of poverty instead.​

​

4. Apprenticeship​

Southern Black Codes provided another source of labor for white employers—black orphans and the children of vagrants or other destitute parents. The South Carolina code authorized courts to apprentice such black children, even against their will, to an employer until age 21 for males and 18 for females. Masters had the right to inflict moderate punishment on their apprentices and to recapture runaways. But the code also required masters to provide food and clothing to their apprentices, teach them a trade, and send them to school.​

​

5. Courts, Crimes, and Punishments​

South Carolina’s Black Code established a racially separate court system for all civil and criminal cases that involved a black plaintiff or defendant. It allowed black witnesses to testify in court, but only in cases affecting “the person or property of a person of color.” Crimes that whites believed freedmen might commit, such as rebellion, arson, burglary, and assaulting a white woman, carried harsh penalties. Most of these crimes carried the death penalty for blacks, but not for whites. Punishments for minor offenses committed by blacks could result in “hiring out” or whipping, penalties rarely imposed on white lawbreakers.​

​

6. Other Restrictions​

South Carolina’s code reflected the white obsession with controlling the former slaves. It banned black people from possessing most firearms, making or selling liquor, and coming into the state without first posting a bond for “good behavior.” The code made it illegal for them to sell any farm products without written permission from their white employer, supposedly to guard against stealing. Also, blacks could not practice any occupation, except farmer or servant under contract, without getting an annual license from a judge.​

Congressional Reconstruction​

The Mississippi and South Carolina Black Codes of 1865 provoked a storm of protest among many Northerners. They accused Southern whites of trying to restore slavery. Congress refused to seat Southerners elected under the new state constitutions. A special congressional committee investigated whether white Southern Reconstruction should be allowed to continue.​

In the South, the Mississippi and South Carolina Black Codes never went into effect. The Union military governors and the Freedmen’s Bureau immediately declared them invalid. Fearing that their self-rule was in jeopardy, the two states revised and moderated their codes. Christmas Day came without either the free land that freedmen had hoped for or the bloody rebellion that whites had dreaded. Instead, as the new year began, freedmen all over the South signed labor contracts and went back to work.​

​

Under the less tense conditions in 1866, most other former Confederate states wrote Black Codes that paid more attention to the legal equality of whites and blacks. But the belated efforts of the white Southerners to treat the freedmen more fairly under the law came too late.​

Along with the Black Codes, other events helped alter the course of Reconstruction: The 14th Amendment passed, and a new Congress hostile to the South was elected. This Congress took control of Reconstruction. When President Johnson vetoed its Reconstruction legislation, Congress overrode his vetoes. The battles with Johnson led ultimately in 1868 to his impeachment by the House, the first impeachment of a president in American history. (The Senate failed to convict him by one vote.)​

​

Under the direction of Congress, most Southern states held new constitutional conventions in 1867–68. This time the freedmen voted and participated. The resulting new state constitutions guaranteed the right of black adult males to vote and run for public office. For the first time, some blacks won election to Southern state legislatures and to Congress. By 1868, most states had repealed the remains of discriminatory Black Code laws.​

​

But Reconstruction did not last long. By 1877, it was dead. The North had lost interest in helping Southern blacks. Many factors had helped kill Reconstruction: economic troubles in the country, a more conservative consensus within the nation, a general feeling in the country that Reconstruction had failed, the resurgence of the Democratic party, and a growing respectability for racist attitudes.​

​

Southern states began trying to end black voting. By 1910, all Southern states had excluded blacks from voting. In the 1890s, Southern states enacted a new form of Black Codes, called “Jim Crow” laws. These laws made it illegal for blacks and whites to share public facilities. This meant that blacks and whites had to use separate schools, hospitals, libraries, restaurants, hotels, bathrooms, and drinking fountains. These laws stayed in effect until the 1950s and 1960s, when the civil rights movement launched an all-out campaign against them. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court declared these laws unconstitutional, and the U.S. Congress passed Civil Rights legislation ensuring equal rights for all citizens.​

For Discussion and Writing​

1. Why did white Southerners believe that a separate code of laws applying only to “persons of color” was necessary?
2. Northerners protested that the Black Codes of South Carolina and other Southern states attempted to restore slavery. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
3. Do you think that the U.S. government should have confiscated lands owned by Confederate leaders to provide “40 acres and a mule” to the landless freedmen? Why or why not?

​

1) This obviously came from a textbook - the giveaway is “for discussion and writing.” I suspect you are a grad student, focusing on how awful whites used to be to blacks - generations ago.

2) You castigated the OP for what you said was repeating the same lie, which was only a lie to YOU, and yet all you do is repeat examples from history of racism. We all know that.

3) OP’s point was that the there was less racial hostility and division prior to Obama - who kicked it off.

- We did not, for example, have college classes on “The Problems of Whiteness” nor have a black woman scour the Internet to “prove” systemic racism and come up with an obscure story that a Chikfilet manager sent a black girl home for unnatural hair.

- Neither did we have blacks attack Asians on the subway or street for no reason, nor did we have large groups of blacks attack elderly white men or a defenseless woman.

4) It has gotten MUCH worse in the last decade or so (and don’t go back to 1859, please), and that is by Democrat design - to convince blacks that they are oppressed victims and that Republicans are the cause. That is why Obama said “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” before even hearing the facts of the case - that Trayvon was attempting to murder Zimmerman.

 

[Kruska]

Why is racism always reverted to White and Black?

Every race beholds and displays racism by it's own racist idiots towards others - not just B&W.

 

[Lisa558]

Prove me wrong. (Side note: USMB and American society had this thing called: "Post racialism") Where did that go? Post racialism just evaporated and forgotten like it never happened?

It’s gotten so bad these days that racist blacks and their liberal white enablers are scouring the Internet to “prove” how awful whites are to blacks - and the stories they come up with are so weak that it proves how little actual racism exists.

For example, Newsvine came up with a couple:

1) A white woman reported a suspicious person in the park - and that person was black. Ah-ha! Look at how racist America is! Well, same thing happened to my brother - he was walking in the park minding his own business and someone called the police on him. He’s white.

2) A Chikfilet manager sent home a black girl for having an unnatural hair color. THAT is what she came up with - some obscure story? Now, it was wrong - but still, the fact that that was all she could come up with shows how rare these things are.

This new-found wailing about how horrible racism is is all based on lies - Michael Brown did NOT have his hands up, and the George Floyd case had nothing to do with race. It is ALL a Democrat ploy to win the election, or, even worse, to create such hostility and chaos that America can be “transformed” the way Obama threatened.

 

[TheParser]

Let's be fair.

* I am 86.

* When I was in college in the 1950s, we DID live in a racist society.

* African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics did not even think of applying for most jobs. (Because they were considered submissive and even intelligent, Asians were accepted in a few professions that did not require their interacting with the public.)

* The 1960s were really a decade of change. Segregation came tumbling down, and there were even whispers that gay people were actually human beings.

* Today the topic of "racism" is being pushed because it is a profession. Many people (such as those commentators on MSNBC) depend on it in order to make a living.

* Here is what is really sad: In the next century, when Hispanic Americans are in the saddle, they are not going to play this "racism" game with African Americans.

 

[Lisa558]

Let's be fair.

* I am 86.

* When I was in college in the 1950s, we DID live in a racist society.

* African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics did not even think of applying for most jobs. (Because they were considered submissive and even intelligent, Asians were accepted in a few professions that did not require their interacting with the public.)

* The 1960s were really a decade of change. Segregation came tumbling down, and there were even whispers that gay people were actually human beings.

* Today the topic of "racism" is being pushed because it is a profession. Many people (such as those commentators on MSNBC) depend on it in order to make a living.

* Here is what is really sad: In the next century, when Hispanic Americans are in the saddle, they are not going to play this "racism" game with African Americans.

I am 20 years younger than you.

- When I went to college, there were plenty of blacks in the university. They had their own clubs and social events, and purposely prevented whites from attending or joining.

- At the same time, we had non-racist clubs and social events, and of course blacks were welcome to attend - and they did.

- Affirmative Action had already started, and many blacks got in thanks to active efforts to bring them in - even with lower SATs and grades than whites.

- In my first job, I lost out on a promotion to a less-qualified black girl - and she had predicted it would happen due to her race. The woman who would have been my new boss admitted to me that she would have much preferred me but that she was under pressure to hire “that black girl” - and then of course told me she would deny the conversation.

- Throughout my career, I saw blacks promoted over better-qualified whites. Two of my friends experienced this racism - in the federal government, which is rampantly racist - and they both sued. They both won. One of the cases was very blatant - my friend, with a Masters and 10 years in the job, was passed over for the assistant she has just hired six months earlier who had a high school diploma.

- It is only in recent years that this idea that blacks are so oppressed and victimized cropped up - and classes on ”Problems of Whiteness” and calling everything racist - and it is done to DRIVE the idea that blacks are victimized by evil whiteys. This is being done by the far Left to create chaos and division, and to weaken the country.

 

[TheParser]

I am 20 years younger than you.

- When I went to college, there were plenty of blacks in the university. They had their own clubs and social events, and purposely prevented whites from attending or joining.

- At the same time, we had non-racist clubs and social events, and of course blacks were welcome to attend - and they did.

- Affirmative Action had already started, and many blacks got in thanks to active efforts to bring them in - even with lower SATs and grades than whites.

- In my first job, I lost out on a promotion to a less-qualified black girl - and she had predicted it would happen due to her race. The woman who would have been my new boss admitted to me that she would have much preferred me but that she was under pressure to hire “that black girl” - and then of course told me she would deny the conversation.

- Throughout my career, I saw blacks promoted over better-qualified whites. Two of my friends experienced this racism - in the federal government, which is rampantly racist - and they both sued. They both won. One of the cases was very blatant - my friend, with a Masters and 10 years in the job, was passed over for the assistant she has just hired six months earlier who had a high school diploma.

- It is only in recent years that this idea that blacks are so oppressed and victimized cropped up - and classes on ”Problems of Whiteness” and calling everything racist - and it is done to DRIVE the idea that blacks are victimized by evil whiteys. This is being done by the far Left to create chaos and division, and to weaken the country.

* In the 1970s, there was a program to hire minority teachers in Los Angeles.

* I know an Asian teacher who applied to a predominately Caucasian school.

*The principal immediately offered him a job to fill a vacancy.

* It wasn't that the Asian teacher was especially outstanding, but the principal wanted to fill his minority quota without having to hired a teacher of you-know-what background!!!

*****


On the other hand, in the 1960s, an African American applied to teach at a predominately Caucasian school here in Los Angeles. The faculty, however, had to vote to allow it. They generously voted YES.


*****
In the 1970s, a certain religious group (I shan't it, except it is famous for its liberalism) pushed for busing students from certain parts of Los Angeles to a famous high school that was predominately composed of students from that religious group. Well, you can guess that academic standards plunged and behavior problems became endemic. That religious group withdrew their kids and started private schools -- which are still flourishing in 2023.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

1) This obviously came from a textbook - the giveaway is “for discussion and writing.” I suspect you are a grad student, focusing on how awful whites used to be to blacks - generations ago.

2) You castigated the OP for what you said was repeating the same lie, which was only a lie to YOU, and yet all you do is repeat examples from history of racism. We all know that.

3) OP’s point was that the there was less racial hostility and division prior to Obama - who kicked it off.

- We did not, for example, have college classes on “The Problems of Whiteness” nor have a black woman scour the Internet to “prove” systemic racism and come up with an obscure story that a Chikfilet manager sent a black girl home for unnatural hair.

- Neither did we have blacks attack Asians on the subway or street for no reason, nor did we have large groups of blacks attack elderly white men or a defenseless woman.

4) It has gotten MUCH worse in the last decade or so (and don’t go back to 1859, please), and that is by Democrat design - to convince blacks that they are oppressed victims and that Republicans are the cause. That is why Obama said “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” before even hearing the facts of the case - that Trayvon was attempting to murder Zimmerman.

You said goodbye to me more than a week ago yet you keep responding to my comments, just want you to know that this hasn't escaped my notice.

1) This obviously came from a textbook - the giveaway is “for discussion and writing.” I suspect you are a grad student, focusing on how awful whites used to be to blacks - generations ago.

Giveaway huh? Textbooks are bad now? And really what does it matter what the source is as long as it's valid and accurate information which can be corroborated?

And no Lisa, I am not a "grad student", I am a graduate from a masters degree program in cybersecurity and information assurance. And I too know how to look people up on LinkedIn as well as get them removed from the platform for creating phony and fraudulent profiles.

2) You castigated the OP for what you said was repeating the same lie, which was only a lie to YOU, and yet all you do is repeat examples from history of racism. We all know that.

He does keep repeating the same lie, and a lie's meaning doesn't change depending on who's receiving it. In the OP's case it's a lie because he apparently doesn't know or understand the difference between a social construct and a legal construct, nor do you apparently.

A social construct is "you shouldn't wear white after Labor Day". If you do, people may look down on you, but nothing bad is going to happen to you. If it were a legal construct however someone could send the local police to come after you and ticket you, arrest you, if you put up a fuss and/or try to run or resist in any way, then you can be shot and/or killed (does any of this sound familiar?). A legal construct is something that is enforced by law enforcement, if a criminal violation or you can be sued for, if a civil violation.

The oppression and racial discrimination that was directed towards Black people (people of African descent) in the United States was backed by the force of LAW presumably with the goal of returning said individuals to captivity as a means to create a new "free labor" pool. Any white person could do just about anything they wanted to a Black person without repercussion because Black people had minimal rights and in some circumstances no rights when it came to opposing a white person since their word would always be taken over that of a Black person. Hell a Black person couldn't even sue a white person who had harmed him or her.

The examples from American history that I post are because they support the statements I make that you all seems to have zero knowledge of. I realize you may see them as an inconvenience but they are the truth nonetheless.

3) OP’s point was that the there was less racial hostility and division prior to Obama - who kicked it off.

- We did not, for example, have college classes on “The Problems of Whiteness” nor have a black woman scour the Internet to “prove” systemic racism and come up with an obscure story that a Chikfilet manager sent a black girl home for unnatural hair.

- Neither did we have blacks attack Asians on the subway or street for no reason, nor did we have large groups of blacks attack elderly white men or a defenseless woman.

Lisa how did you family ensure that you were well read and educated in addition to you attending school? I have often wondered how any of you make the determination if something is true or false because it seems like you all just go with what you want to be true. Our home was filled with books but the most important ones were 1) the dictionaries, and 2) the World Book Encyclopedias and their companion volumes for children Childcraft.

If I didn't know what a word meant, I'd look it up in the dictionary but if I wanted to know more about a topic, I generally could find it in the World Book Encyclopedias. THIS is how I would verify for myself if something was true or not and how I would try to put new information received into context that I could understand or relate to. I was in early grade school when I began doing this.

I've never had a class on African American history because they didn't offer them when I was attending school, at least not at the universities I've attended, although ironically I didn't find out that my grandfather was somewhat famous until my instructor in one of my history classes (History of Aviation or World History) began telling our class about this famous group of African American fighter pilots who flew in WWII for the United States/Allies. Then, just like on this message board, there was this ONE guy in class, and yes he was white because in most of my classes I was the only Black person as well as the only female, who argued our instructor down that there was no such thing as a Black pilot who fought in WWII for the U.S. He wasn't even convinced when I told him that my grandfather was one of these men that our instructor was describing, a Tuskegee Airman although I had never heard them referred to that way before that day. I even described the photo that my grandmother had of him in his uniform that was kept on the mantel in her living room, but there was no convincing him.

I'm not sure how you all missed the fact that the racial hostility you all seem to have detected as having increased is coming from white racists in RESPONSE to a Black man being in THEIR WHITE House. The rest of your comment is just crap, it is not necessary for me nor anyone else to "scour" the internet looking for examples of continued racism, numerous news reports show up every day, we don't have to go looking for them, there are that many of them. But again, you all don't encounter the things we do because doesn't impact you for the most part.

Nonetheless, none of the above has any impact on the veracity of my original statement

4) It has gotten MUCH worse in the last decade or so (and don’t go back to 1859, please), and that is by Democrat design - to convince blacks that they are oppressed victims and that Republicans are the cause. That is why Obama said “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” before even hearing the facts of the case - that Trayvon was attempting to murder Zimmerman.

No Lisa, that's not why President Obama said what he said. When things like this happen, especially since Martin was in his teens, Black people will often worry "that could have been my son/brother/nephew, etc.). And as much as you all hate the Black Lives Matter movement, Martin's death and Zimmerman's acquittal is the reason they first organized.

And you're exaggerating again when you claim that Martin was trying to "murder" Zimmerman. Remember the brawl in Alabama? Remember how it was just a fist fight in the end (minus the folder chair)? Zimmerman was engaging in behavior that he was not authorized to do, and the police detectives were coaching him on how to beat the charges against him so he escaped consequences for that particular death. But the world got Black Lives Matter so Martin's death was not entirely in vain. I just hope I'm still around when Zimmerman finally gets his comeuppance.

Things are getting worse because there are a hell of a lot more people in the U.S. today, but on the other hand we see how long it took before things started to turn around and justice for Black people killed at the hands of the people or individuals acting as if they are police was first obtained - George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbury immediately come to mind but finally, there are so many others.

 

[Lisa558]

You said goodbye to me more than a week ago yet you keep responding to my comments, just want you to know that this hasn't escaped my notice.


Giveaway huh? Textbooks are bad now? And really what does it matter what the source is as long as it's valid and accurate information which can be corroborated?

And no Lisa, I am not a "grad student", I am a graduate from a masters degree program in cybersecurity and information assurance. And I too know how to look people up on LinkedIn as well as get them removed from the platform for creating phony and fraudulent profiles.



He does keep repeating the same lie, and a lie's meaning doesn't change depending on who's receiving it. In the OP's case it's a lie because he apparently doesn't know or understand the difference between a social construct and a legal construct, nor do you apparently.

A social construct is "you shouldn't wear white after Labor Day". If you do, people may look down on you, but nothing bad is going to happen to you. If it were a legal construct however someone could send the local police to come after you and ticket you, arrest you, if you put up a fuss and/or try to run or resist in any way, then you can be shot and/or killed (does any of this sound familiar?)

The oppression and racial discrimination that was directed towards Black people (people of African descent) in the United States was backed by the force of LAW. Any white person could do just about anything they wanted to a Black person without repercussion because Black people had minimal rights and in some circumstances no rights when it came to opposing a white person since their word would always be taken over that of a Black person. Hell a Black person couldn't even sue a white person who had harmed him or her.

The examples from American history that I post are because they support the statements I make that you all seems to have zero knowledge of. I realize you may see them as an inconvenience but they are the truth nonetheless.


Lisa how did you family ensure that you were well read and educated in addition to you attending school? I have often wondered how any of you make the determination if something is true or false because it seems like you all just go with what you want to be true. Our home was filled with books but the most important ones were 1) the dictionaries, and 2) the World Book Encyclopedias and their companion volumes for children Childcraft.

If I didn't know what a word meant, I'd look it up in the dictionary but if I wanted to know more about a topic, I generally could find it in the World Book Encyclopedias. THIS is how I would verify for myself if something was true or not and how I would try to put new information received into context that I could understand or relate to. I was in early grade school when I began doing this.

I've never had a class on African American history because they didn't offer them when I was attending school, at least not at the universities I've attended, although ironically I didn't find out that my grandfather was somewhat famous until my instructor in one of my history classes (History of Aviation or World History) began telling our class about this famous group of African American fighter pilots who flew in WWII for the United States/Allies. Then, just like on this message board, there was this ONE guy in class, and yes he was white because in most of my classes I was the only Black person as well as the only female, who argued our instructor down that there was no such thing as a Black pilot who fought in WWII for the U.S. He wasn't even convinced when I told him that my grandfather was one of these men that our instructor was describing, a Tuskegee Airman although I had never heard them referred to that way before that day. I even described the photo that my grandmother had of him in his uniform that was kept on the mantel in her living room, but there was no convincing him.

I'm not sure how you all missed the fact that the racial hostility you all seem to have detected as having increased is coming from white racists in RESPONSE to a Black man being in THEIR WHITE House. The rest of your comment is just crap, it is not necessary for me nor anyone else to "scour" the internet looking for examples of continued racism, numerous news reports show up every day, we don't have to go looking for them, there are that many of them. But again, you all don't encounter the things we do because doesn't impact you for the most part.

Nonetheless, none of the above has any impact on the veracity of my original statement



No Lisa, that's not why President Obama said what he said. When things like this happen, especially since Martin was in his teens, Black people will often worry "that could have been my son/brother/nephew, etc.). And as much as you all hate the Black Lives Matter movement, Martin's death and Zimmerman's acquittal is the reason they first organized.

And you're exaggerating again when you claim that Martin was trying to "murder" Zimmerman. Remember the brawl in Alabama? Remember how it was just a fist fight in the end (minus the folder chair)? Zimmerman was engaging in behavior that he was not authorized to do, and the police detectives were coaching him on how to beat the charges against him so he escaped consequences for that particular death. But the world got Black Lives Matter so Martin's death was not entirely in vain. I just hope I'm still around when Zimmerman finally gets his comeuppance.

Things are getting worse because there are a hell of a lot more people in the U.S. today, but on the other hand we see how long it took before things started to turn around and justice for Black people killed at the hands of the people or individuals acting as if they are police was first obtained - George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbury immediately come to mind but finally, there are so many others.

Way too long…..didn’t read.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Prove me wrong. (Side note: USMB and American society had this thing called: "Post racialism") Where did that go? Post racialism just evaporated and forgotten like it never happened?

lol

And with this post you prove that racism is not a ‘scam’; that racism is alive and well among the hateful American right.

 

[Hector12]

White racism does not cause black social pathology. Black social pathology causes white racism.

I can understand why people feel sorry for blacks. I cannot understand how anyone can genuinely admire a race that is characterized by low intelligence, and high rates of crime and illegitimacy.

There are Negroes who are intelligent, law abiding, and monogamous. Unfortunately they are not typical.

 

[IM2]

Prove me wrong. (Side note: USMB and American society had this thing called: "Post racialism") Where did that go? Post racialism just evaporated and forgotten like it never happened?

Your existence proves you wrong.

 

[Kruska]

Let's be fair.

* I am 86.

* When I was in college in the 1950s, we DID live in a racist society.

And we still do - every race and country has it's racist idiots - to state that there is no racism is just silly or plainly false.
Even an "official" non-racist society (due to it's constitution) - such as e.g. Western Democratic countries - off course have racist idiots and therefore face racist issues all the time.

The factual issue is as to what defines racism or a racist - and who uses/manipulates and then terms others thoughts and statements to be supposedly racist - and not simply as a factual statement in regards to a race or a specific group.

To state that e.g. migrants from Africa ought to be send back to their originating countries - has absolutely no racist bearing, aside to those who try to manipulate such a statement. To state that e.g. African buggers and Muslim a-holes ought to be send........ , now that clearly has a racist mindset behind it.

So it is defined by the words/terms that one uses as such to term/define people, and lastly the reasons forwarded as to why Migrants from Africa ought to be send home.

That lefty&libs who charter vessels and crews to pick up migrants in e.g. the Mediterranean Sea and bring them into EU harbors - instead of back to e.g. Libyan harbors - will call/term anyone opposing such efforts towards EU harbors as racists, is understood. Simply due to only upon pulling the racist card - can they fulfill their personal agenda.