The Stone Cold Truth
- Thread starter IM2
- Start date
- Status
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 116,328
- 150,379
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #82
It's now time to look at the cold, hard, graphic reality of what racism by whites has entailed. The information used in this thread will come from the book, "White Rage," by Dr. Carol Anderson.
White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide
National Book Critics Circle Award Winner
New York Times Bestseller
A New York Times Notable Book of the Year
A Washington Post Notable Nonfiction Book of the Year
A Boston Globe Best Book of 2016
A Chicago Review of Books Best Nonfiction Book of 2016
From the end of the Civil War to our combustible present, an acclaimed historian reframes the conversation about race, chronicling the powerful forces opposed to black progress in America.
Since 1865 and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, every time African Americans have made advances towards full participation in our democracy, white reaction has fueled a deliberate, relentless rollback of their gains. The end of the Civil War and Reconstruction was greeted with the Black Codes and Jim Crow; the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision was met with the shutting down of public schools throughout the South; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 triggered a coded response, the so-called Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs that disenfranchised millions of African Americans.
White Rage — Carol Anderson
Starting with my next post, you will be shown in graphic detail the steps whites took to deprive blacks of equal rights and freedom after slavery ended up until our lifetimes. The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. That's a fact and it's time people faced that fact.
You poor sick puppy.
bluzman61
Diamond Member
The history of Motown WOULD be a better topic than your usual crap.
It's now time to look at the cold, hard, graphic reality of what racism by whites has entailed. The information used in this thread will come from the book, "White Rage," by Dr. Carol Anderson.
White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide
National Book Critics Circle Award Winner
New York Times Bestseller
A New York Times Notable Book of the Year
A Washington Post Notable Nonfiction Book of the Year
A Boston Globe Best Book of 2016
A Chicago Review of Books Best Nonfiction Book of 2016
From the end of the Civil War to our combustible present, an acclaimed historian reframes the conversation about race, chronicling the powerful forces opposed to black progress in America.
Since 1865 and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, every time African Americans have made advances towards full participation in our democracy, white reaction has fueled a deliberate, relentless rollback of their gains. The end of the Civil War and Reconstruction was greeted with the Black Codes and Jim Crow; the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision was met with the shutting down of public schools throughout the South; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 triggered a coded response, the so-called Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs that disenfranchised millions of African Americans.
White Rage — Carol Anderson
Starting with my next post, you will be shown in graphic detail the steps whites took to deprive blacks of equal rights and freedom after slavery ended up until our lifetimes. The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. That's a fact and it's time people faced that fact.
You poor sick puppy.
I ain't white, dipshit. And it ain't whites constantly whining. That would be you. You mental midgets think you are owed something for crimes committed long before you were born, by people who for the most part weren't even here then, which just makes you a infantile asshole.
Ethos Logos Pathos
Senior Member
- Dec 16, 2019
- 875
- 112
- 55
- Banned
- #85
Nope. You can't go around ignoring real events/real actions which prove that certain powerful Whites are not racists.
And if you refuse to move away from your, blurred-vision, then you have to accept the fact that this country belongs to Caucasoids and therefore it is not controlled by Blacks.
Meaning what? That those in control do not owe IM2 their effort to stop being racist, just long IM2 does not owe them his effort to show that he lives a life which dosent deserve to experience White racism.
This is not your country, it belongs to Whites. Go live life according to that fact, each time a powerful White person uplifts your Race when she/he did not have to do so ---especially whenever it damaged their clout among both ordinary White people and White supremacists.
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 95,809
- 71,886
- 3,645
Blacks should not be concerned with white rage since rage among whites is too slight. What blacks should be concerned with is white contempt. When whites see a black they figuratively put their hands over their ears and yell lalalala. I can't hear you!
The endless whining, crying, importuning and generalized kvetching have suffocated out any sympathy, empathy or concern.
See rage might dehumanize blacks. They might be less than human. Perhaps considered a species of animal. But they exist. They count and they matter. Get mad at them. Stamp your feet and shake your curls. They are still there monoliths of the results of white impotency.
Contempt. Ahh contempt. Blacks no longer exist. They have no feelings nor substance. Look away, walk away, leave bodies laying in the street and step over them. I don't see you. I don't hear you. You have gone out of my reality.
Now blacks have real complaints and no one to listen.
The endless whining, crying, importuning and generalized kvetching have suffocated out any sympathy, empathy or concern.
See rage might dehumanize blacks. They might be less than human. Perhaps considered a species of animal. But they exist. They count and they matter. Get mad at them. Stamp your feet and shake your curls. They are still there monoliths of the results of white impotency.
Contempt. Ahh contempt. Blacks no longer exist. They have no feelings nor substance. Look away, walk away, leave bodies laying in the street and step over them. I don't see you. I don't hear you. You have gone out of my reality.
Now blacks have real complaints and no one to listen.
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 116,328
- 150,379
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #87
So then we have the "Civil Rights Cases." Funny how they are named that and a few of the people here have actually claimed blacks were given civil rights in the late 1800's.
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), were a group of five cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not empower Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals. The decision has never been overturned, but in the 1965 case of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Congress could prohibit racial discrimination by private actors under the Commerce Clause.
During Reconstruction, Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which entitled everyone to access accommodation, public transport, and theaters regardless of race or color. In his majority opinion in the Civil Rights Cases, Associate Justice Joseph P. Bradley struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, holding that the Thirteenth Amendment "merely abolishes slavery" and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give Congress the power to outlaw private acts of racial discrimination. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter in the case, writing that the "substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism." The decision ushered in the widespread segregation of blacks in housing, employment, and public life that confined them to second-class citizenship throughout much of the United States until the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
Civil Rights Cases - Wikipedia
Associate Justice Joseph Bradley, a REPUBLICAN struck down the 1875 Civil Rights Act.
Bradley said the following, holding the Constitution did "not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights," as distinct from "state" laws. In effect, only state bodies were sufficiently "public" so as to be regulated.
.. individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [Fourteenth] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. ...
It does not invest congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of state legislation; but to provide modes of relief against state legislation, or state action, of the kind referred to. It does not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights; but to provide modes of redress against the operation of state laws, and the action of state officers, executive or judicial, when these are subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the amendment. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment; but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges, and by power given to congress to legislate for the purpose of carrying such prohibition into effect; and such legislation must necessarily be predicated upon such supposed state laws or state proceedings, and be directed to the correction of their operation and effect. A quite full discussion of this aspect of the amendment may be found in U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, and Ex parte Virginia, Id. 339.
Civil Rights Cases - Wikipedia
Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485 (1877)
In 1877 the Supreme Court ruled in Hall v. DeCuir that states could not prohibit segregation on common carriers such as railroads, streetcars, or riverboats.
Jim Crow law | History, Facts, & Examples
From 1873 the SCOTUS had dismantled the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments via a series of court cases like the ones mentioned here. So while blacks were no longer in chains, blacks were not really free.
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), were a group of five cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not empower Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals. The decision has never been overturned, but in the 1965 case of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Congress could prohibit racial discrimination by private actors under the Commerce Clause.
During Reconstruction, Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which entitled everyone to access accommodation, public transport, and theaters regardless of race or color. In his majority opinion in the Civil Rights Cases, Associate Justice Joseph P. Bradley struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, holding that the Thirteenth Amendment "merely abolishes slavery" and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give Congress the power to outlaw private acts of racial discrimination. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter in the case, writing that the "substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism." The decision ushered in the widespread segregation of blacks in housing, employment, and public life that confined them to second-class citizenship throughout much of the United States until the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
Civil Rights Cases - Wikipedia
Associate Justice Joseph Bradley, a REPUBLICAN struck down the 1875 Civil Rights Act.
Bradley said the following, holding the Constitution did "not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights," as distinct from "state" laws. In effect, only state bodies were sufficiently "public" so as to be regulated.
.. individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [Fourteenth] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. ...
It does not invest congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of state legislation; but to provide modes of relief against state legislation, or state action, of the kind referred to. It does not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights; but to provide modes of redress against the operation of state laws, and the action of state officers, executive or judicial, when these are subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the amendment. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment; but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges, and by power given to congress to legislate for the purpose of carrying such prohibition into effect; and such legislation must necessarily be predicated upon such supposed state laws or state proceedings, and be directed to the correction of their operation and effect. A quite full discussion of this aspect of the amendment may be found in U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, and Ex parte Virginia, Id. 339.
Civil Rights Cases - Wikipedia
Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485 (1877)
In 1877 the Supreme Court ruled in Hall v. DeCuir that states could not prohibit segregation on common carriers such as railroads, streetcars, or riverboats.
Jim Crow law | History, Facts, & Examples
From 1873 the SCOTUS had dismantled the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments via a series of court cases like the ones mentioned here. So while blacks were no longer in chains, blacks were not really free.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
White conservatives opposed to black progress in America – it’s important to acknowledge that fact; not ‘all whites.’It's now time to look at the cold, hard, graphic reality of what racism by whites has entailed. The information used in this thread will come from the book, "White Rage," by Dr. Carol Anderson.
White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide
National Book Critics Circle Award Winner
New York Times Bestseller
A New York Times Notable Book of the Year
A Washington Post Notable Nonfiction Book of the Year
A Boston Globe Best Book of 2016
A Chicago Review of Books Best Nonfiction Book of 2016
From the end of the Civil War to our combustible present, an acclaimed historian reframes the conversation about race, chronicling the powerful forces opposed to black progress in America.
Since 1865 and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, every time African Americans have made advances towards full participation in our democracy, white reaction has fueled a deliberate, relentless rollback of their gains. The end of the Civil War and Reconstruction was greeted with the Black Codes and Jim Crow; the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision was met with the shutting down of public schools throughout the South; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 triggered a coded response, the so-called Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs that disenfranchised millions of African Americans.
White Rage — Carol Anderson
Starting with my next post, you will be shown in graphic detail the steps whites took to deprive blacks of equal rights and freedom after slavery ended up until our lifetimes. The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. That's a fact and it's time people faced that fact.
Oh HELL no... Where's your White rage White guilt absolution card buster????
But of course you're right.. Most of this historical recap and continuing rage is really political NOW -- isn't it?
Especially with the OP who just feasts on this stuff..
It's REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to have empathy with a guy who tells me to "shut up" constantly because I don't support his POLITICS... Although I TRULY support the causes that he does....
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 116,328
- 150,379
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #91
White conservatives opposed to black progress in America – it’s important to acknowledge that fact; not ‘all whites.’It's now time to look at the cold, hard, graphic reality of what racism by whites has entailed. The information used in this thread will come from the book, "White Rage," by Dr. Carol Anderson.
White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide
National Book Critics Circle Award Winner
New York Times Bestseller
A New York Times Notable Book of the Year
A Washington Post Notable Nonfiction Book of the Year
A Boston Globe Best Book of 2016
A Chicago Review of Books Best Nonfiction Book of 2016
From the end of the Civil War to our combustible present, an acclaimed historian reframes the conversation about race, chronicling the powerful forces opposed to black progress in America.
Since 1865 and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, every time African Americans have made advances towards full participation in our democracy, white reaction has fueled a deliberate, relentless rollback of their gains. The end of the Civil War and Reconstruction was greeted with the Black Codes and Jim Crow; the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision was met with the shutting down of public schools throughout the South; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 triggered a coded response, the so-called Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs that disenfranchised millions of African Americans.
White Rage — Carol Anderson
Starting with my next post, you will be shown in graphic detail the steps whites took to deprive blacks of equal rights and freedom after slavery ended up until our lifetimes. The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. That's a fact and it's time people faced that fact.
Oh HELL no... Where's your White rage White guilt absolution card buster????
But of course you're right.. Most of this historical recap and continuing rage is really political NOW -- isn't it?
Especially with the OP who just feasts on this stuff..
It's REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to have empathy with a guy who tells me to "shut up" constantly because I don't support his POLITICS... Although I TRULY support the causes that he does....
Politics are only part of this.
You have assumed things that are incorrect about me and you bring no logical solutions or opinion to this discussion. I am doing this in an attempt to close the age old racism based opinion of everybody had it just as tough as blacks but blacks are just too dumb to make it. I am also doing this to show how government created the problem therefore government is responsible for creating suitable solutions which is a belief you don't like because you live in a conservative delusion whereby you tell yourselves that the government has never done anything for you.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
I think YOU bring up the dumb more than it deserves... Not everybody is gonna love you.. Didn't you figure that out by now?? If you looking for that ACTUAL demographic for intelligent convo -- good ******* luck with that.. But you're turning off allies and folks with no ill will at all... And YOU'LL FIND "hidden racism" in just about anyone that disagrees with you HOW to continue the struggle for parity and equality... Or just tell them to STFU.. And that's a problem..
Because your LEADERSHIP has a conflict of interest.. They need the JOBS of promoting race friction.. There's a LOT of influence and money in that business.. Churnming out thousands of NEW experts at race baiting at all the major universities every year. BIG ******* business...
And every time I talk to you about RECONCILIATION -- you act like you are on their payroll.. Or on the Diversity Board at the DNC....
Too bad they are not focused on turning out skilled and versatile PROBLEM SOLVERS and independent thinkers...
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Get off my cloud.. I've written articles about GOVERNMENT racism.. I've even had convos with YOU about the fact that a lot of racial tension is STILL CAUSED by inept, uncompassionate, MORONIC govt and the piss poor "customer service" they use at local, state, federal levels..
THAT'S my bandwagon.. And you think I'm working AGAINST YOU.... The very BASIS of disparate statistics on arrests, convictions, and warrants STEM from the fact that govt STILL does "one size fits all" justice at the town and city levels... And that's not SOLELY a racial issue unless you're a partisan whore that purposely CONFUSES economic disparity with racial bias..
In fact, the pitches I've made are making a difference. Justice reform is gaining traction.. It's just getting RUINED by leftist govt leaders who confuse fairness with totally decriminalizing shoplifting and speeding tickets... THAT'S POLITICAL PANDERING -- not actually getting govt to redesign the justice interface that the economically vulnerable fall prey to DAILY....
MaryL
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #95
Years back I had some random black guy shake my hand and welcome me for just walking through a black neighborhood. And later, after that a MLK rally I saw the hate and violence break out against a tiny white racist group...against everything Martin Luther King preached.. it opened my eyes. People are frigging idiots...
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 116,328
- 150,379
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #96
Let us continue with more of the stone cold truth.
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899), ("Richmond") was a class action suit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] It is a landmark case, in that it sanctioned de jure segregation of races in American schools. The decision was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
The Supreme Court affirmed on economic arguments, among others. It claimed that there are many more colored children than white children in the area and that the Board could not afford to supply everyone with education. The court reasoned that there was a choice between educating 60 white children and educating no one.
The Supreme Court denied that it had any jurisdiction to interfere in the decisions of the state courts. The decision states in pertinent part:
Under the circumstances disclosed, we cannot say that this action of the state court was, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, a denial by the state to the plaintiffs and to those associated with them of the equal protection of the laws or of any privileges belonging to them as citizens of the United States,... the education of the people in schools maintained by state taxation is a matter belonging to the respective states, and any interference on the part of Federal authority with the management of such schools cannot be justified except in the case of a clear and unmistakable disregard of rights secured by the supreme law of the land.
The final remark says:
If, in some appropriate proceeding instituted directly for that purpose, the plaintiffs had sought to compel the board of education, out of the funds in its hands or under its control, to establish and maintain a high school for colored children, and if it appeared that the board's refusal to maintain such a school was in fact an abuse of its discretion and in hostility to the colored population because of their race, different questions might have arisen in the state court.
Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the lone dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education - Wikipedia
Harlan was a REPUBLICAN. The party of Lincoln, the party of civil rights and the party of DE JURE SEGREGATION.
Williams v Mississippi
Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case that reviewed provisions of the state constitution that set requirements for voter registration. The Supreme Court did not find discrimination in the state's requirements for voters to pass a literacy test and pay poll taxes, as these were applied to all voters.
In practice, the subjective nature of literacy approval by white registrars worked to drastically decrease and essentially disfranchise African American voters.
The Court considered the new Mississippi constitution passed in 1890. It upheld disfranchisement clauses which established requirements for literacy tests and poll taxes paid retroactively from one's 21st birthday as prerequisites for voter registration. A grandfather clause effectively exempted illiterate whites, but not blacks, from the literacy test by relating qualifications to whether one's grandfather had voted before a certain date.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Williams' contention in a 9-0 vote, ruling that he had not shown administration of the Mississippi suffrage provision was discriminatory.
Williams v. Mississippi - Wikipedia
And there goes the right to vote for blacks.
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899), ("Richmond") was a class action suit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] It is a landmark case, in that it sanctioned de jure segregation of races in American schools. The decision was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
The Supreme Court affirmed on economic arguments, among others. It claimed that there are many more colored children than white children in the area and that the Board could not afford to supply everyone with education. The court reasoned that there was a choice between educating 60 white children and educating no one.
The Supreme Court denied that it had any jurisdiction to interfere in the decisions of the state courts. The decision states in pertinent part:
Under the circumstances disclosed, we cannot say that this action of the state court was, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, a denial by the state to the plaintiffs and to those associated with them of the equal protection of the laws or of any privileges belonging to them as citizens of the United States,... the education of the people in schools maintained by state taxation is a matter belonging to the respective states, and any interference on the part of Federal authority with the management of such schools cannot be justified except in the case of a clear and unmistakable disregard of rights secured by the supreme law of the land.
The final remark says:
If, in some appropriate proceeding instituted directly for that purpose, the plaintiffs had sought to compel the board of education, out of the funds in its hands or under its control, to establish and maintain a high school for colored children, and if it appeared that the board's refusal to maintain such a school was in fact an abuse of its discretion and in hostility to the colored population because of their race, different questions might have arisen in the state court.
Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the lone dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education - Wikipedia
Harlan was a REPUBLICAN. The party of Lincoln, the party of civil rights and the party of DE JURE SEGREGATION.
Williams v Mississippi
Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case that reviewed provisions of the state constitution that set requirements for voter registration. The Supreme Court did not find discrimination in the state's requirements for voters to pass a literacy test and pay poll taxes, as these were applied to all voters.
In practice, the subjective nature of literacy approval by white registrars worked to drastically decrease and essentially disfranchise African American voters.
The Court considered the new Mississippi constitution passed in 1890. It upheld disfranchisement clauses which established requirements for literacy tests and poll taxes paid retroactively from one's 21st birthday as prerequisites for voter registration. A grandfather clause effectively exempted illiterate whites, but not blacks, from the literacy test by relating qualifications to whether one's grandfather had voted before a certain date.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Williams' contention in a 9-0 vote, ruling that he had not shown administration of the Mississippi suffrage provision was discriminatory.
Williams v. Mississippi - Wikipedia
And there goes the right to vote for blacks.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
You'd THINK that to avoid getting warrants to arrest people who didn't pay the ticket for a broken tail light -- they MIGHT
1) Allow payment plans for those who qualify...
2) Allow zoning and licensing waivers for "convenience shops" that can REPAIR a broken taillight or other car safety issues using parts donated from Auto supply companies and volunteer labor...
THOSE kind of solutions... Instead, the city of Ferguson issued an average of 3.5 WARRANTS for every ******* household... With almost half of those INACCURATE OR BOGUS... And no way for person on the ledge of economic collapse to get the warrant changed or withdrawn without days off and a lot of wasted time...
More than 1/2 of "racial bias" identified in the "Ferguson Report" from the DOJ would disappear IMMEDIATELY if the town had a smarter more compassionate "customer service" and justice interface....
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 116,328
- 150,379
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #98
The government is the people who formulate and carry out policy. The government by law must enact race neutral policy. But the people carrying out the policy can use race colored thinking in service delivery. When the 1994 Crime bill was passed, it was not passed with the intent of over incarcerating blacks. But police departments and judges made decisions based on their race colored beliefs. So this means that not only is a change in policy needed, but changes in those employed to carry out the policies. On a political level, it means a change in the politicians elected to make law. The Steve Kings of the country must no longer be elected to hold public office.
Last, there is no confusing economic disparity with racial bias because economic disparity in non white communities is a result of racial bias. Until you start understanding that, all you will be doing is creating a system that will generate the same results. You cannot solve a problem created by racism without addressing racism.
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 116,328
- 150,379
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #99
And this is what I am talking about when I said:
"The government is the people who formulate and carry out policy. The government by law must enact race neutral policy. But the people carrying out the policy can use race colored thinking in service delivery."
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Forget GMO.......you've gotta worry about "lab grown" now!!!- Started by LibertyWeeps
- Replies: 0
-
