Oklahoma's anti-critical race theory law violates free speech rights, ACLU suit says

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  one month ago  •  516 comments

By:   Tyler Kingkade and Antonia Hylton (NBC News)

Oklahoma's anti-critical race theory law violates free speech rights, ACLU suit says
The ACLU federal lawsuit in Oklahoma is the first to challenge a state law implemented to prevent the teaching of critical race theory.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



OKLAHOMA CITY — A coalition of civil rights groups sued the state of Oklahoma on Tuesday over a law limiting instruction about race and gender in public schools. It is the first federal lawsuit to challenge a state statute implemented to prevent the teaching of critical race theory.

The suit, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, argues that HB 1775, which took effect in May, violates students' and teachers' free speech rights and denies people of color, LGBTQ students and girls the chance to learn their history.

The Oklahoma law bans teaching that anyone is "inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously," or that they should feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress" because of their race or sex. Under rules imposed by the state, teachers or administrators found in violation of the law can lose their licenses, and schools can lose accreditation.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to immediately halt enforcement of the law and declare it unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

"HB 1775 is a direct affront to the constitutional rights of teachers and students across Oklahoma by restricting conversations around race and gender at all levels of education," said Megan Lambert, the legal director of the ACLU of Oklahoma.

Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has said previously that the law would ensure that no taxpayer money would be used "to define and divide young Oklahomans about their race or sex."

Over the past year, conservative activists have accused public and private schools of teaching critical race theory, an academic concept examining the way institutions perpetuate racism that is typically taught in graduate schools. School district leaders across the country have said they do not teach critical race theory, but conservative activists have added the label to any discussions about race that they consider too progressive.

Oklahoma is one of five Republican-controlled states to have passed laws limiting how schools teach race and gender this year. Other states, including Alabama, Georgia and Florida, have limited discussions of race in schools through decrees by education officials, while states such as Texas approved measures requiring schools to present contrasting viewpoints on contentious issues.

Legislators in Oklahoma defended HB 1775 when it passed in the spring as a measure that would prevent teachers from making white students feel personally responsible for past racism. They also said it would protect students of color from racial stereotyping. The law's backers said they intended to prohibit classroom conversations about concepts like "systemic racism" and "intersectionality" to prevent "indoctrination" of students.

"The law ensures that all history is taught in schools without shaming the children of today into blaming themselves for problems of the past, as radical leftists would prefer," state Rep. Kevin West, a Republican and chief sponsor of HB 1775, said in reaction to the lawsuit.

Genevieve Bonadies Torres, a attorney with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the group has received reports of Oklahoma schools striking classic literature that deals with racial conflict from the curriculum in response to the law, including "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, "A Raisin in the Sun," a play by Lorraine Hansberry, and "Their Eyes Were Watching God" by Zora Neale Hurston. Districts have also instructed teachers to stop using terms like "diversity" and "white privilege" in class, according to the lawsuit.

"I felt like it was a shot at teachers like me who really want to see Black and brown kids really do something with their lives," said Anthony Crawford, a high school English teacher in Oklahoma City. "Because they need this part of history. They need to understand what happened to their people."

Anthony Crawford teaching at Millwood High School in Oklahoma City.NBC News

Donovan Chaney, 17, a high school senior in Crawford's class, who is Black, said he sees the law as "the way to censor our next generation, so they don't know all the horrible things that went on before they were born."

The suit was filed on behalf of the University of Oklahoma chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the state chapter of the NAACP, the activist group American Indian Movement-Indian Territory and high school teacher Regan Killackey. Also among the plaintiffs are the Black Emergency Response Team, a group formed by University of Oklahoma students to combat racism after Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity members were captured on video in 2015 singing a song about lynching that included the N-word.

The fraternity racism scandal prompted the University of Oklahoma to take several steps to improve the campus climate, including requiring all first-year students to take part in a Freshman Diversity Experience, a one-day diversity training. The university said that because of the new law, it will now allow students to opt out of the program, as well as sexual harassment training.

"Not having these trainings and not giving incoming freshmen these tools has had a tangible impact on our clients, who say that they feel less safe on campus knowing that not only have people not been trained on these important and complicated and difficult questions, but they don't feel supported by the university, either," said Emerson Sykes, a staff attorney with the ACLU.

Oklahoma's law is particularly egregious, the suit says, because it limits discussion of dark periods of the state's history by preventing students and teachers from asking uncomfortable questions. The suit lists several moments that are difficult for educators to cover: the 1889 Land Runs, in which settlers raced to claim land in Oklahoma's Indian Territory; the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, when a white mob attacked a community known as Black Wall Street, killing hundreds of people and destroying homes and businesses; and the state's constitutional provision that required racially segregated schools until the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed them in 1954.

When Stitt signed HB 1775 in May, he said that educators "can and should teach this history without labeling a young child an 'oppressor'" and that the law would not prevent that.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
1  Ed-NavDoc    one month ago

Somehow, that the ACLU (American Civil Leftist Union) has taken this up is not surprising at all./s 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1    one month ago

The American Civil Liberties Union stands up for your rights, as well.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
1.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1    one month ago

They've never stood for mine personally, but then again I had bad experience with them years ago so my feelings may be somewhat biased. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1    one month ago

I prefer the ACLJ to protect my rights as well as ADF. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.2    one month ago
I prefer the ACLJ to protect my rights  (emphasis mine)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.3    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.3    one month ago

ACLJ and Alliance Defending Freedom are very effective in defending the freedom, rights, and liberty of the clients they have represented in court and other law making bodies. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.6  squiggy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1    one month ago

They can’t count to two.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1    one month ago

Why would they take it up if as our secular progressives here say that it’s not being taught K-12.Why would the ACLU take up a moot case?  

 
 
 
MsMarple
Freshman Silent
1.2.1  MsMarple  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    one month ago

Why did the ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie? Talk about a moot case, lol

Something to do with "civil liberties", "the First AMendment"? - I dunno. That's the ACLU for you. I am a card carrying member....Pay my dues every year. Cuz you never know when you are gonna need them, in case I feel like a Nazi...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1    one month ago
Somehow, that the ACLU (American Civil Leftist Union) has taken this up is not surprising at all./s 

It's a stupid lawsuit against a stupid law.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
1.3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3    one month ago

Yep.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    one month ago

It's not being taught so I don't get what the problem is here.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago

Then it is a frivolous lawsuit by the ACLU.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    one month ago

BING-FUCKING-O!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    one month ago

It's the law that frivolous. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    one month ago
Then it is a frivolous lawsuit by the ACLU.

Absolutely!  How does one equate freedom of speech (which btw is denied on most leftist universities) with a curriculum?

Furthermore, we are repeatedly being told that CRT is not being taught in the public schools, so what is the problem with this law? The law does not prevent the teaching of US history, which CRT proponents claim that's all they are doing, it only prevents teachers from making white students feel personally responsible for past racism or black students feel like they can't succeed in life because of their race.

The ACLU has become an outspoken advocate for CRT and is now actively aiding the American left in imposing their radical beliefs on the rest of American society and the culture, including the education of young children, the United States armed forces as well as higher education and the federal government.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    one month ago
How does one equate freedom of speech (which btw is denied on most leftist universities) with a curriculum?

The same way you equate it with a religion. 

Furthermore, we are repeatedly being told that CRT is not being taught in the public schools, so what is the problem with this law?

The problem is that it penalizes teachers for holding open, inclusive discussions on multiple topics. There is NOTHING to stop a parent from attacking a teacher for being in the classroom when a STUDENT speaks on the prohibited topics. 

Secondly, the 8 banned "concepts" are copied and pasted directly from a 2020 Trump EO that was blocked by the Federal court for being 'impermissibly vague".

The law does not prevent the teaching of US history, which CRT proponents claim that's all they are doing, it only prevents teachers from making white students feel personally responsible for past racism or black students feel like they can't succeed in life because of their race.

You're making an uninformed assumption Vic. 

The ACLU has become an outspoken advocate for CRT and is now actively aiding the American left in imposing their radical beliefs on the rest of American society and the culture, including the education of young children, the United States armed forces as well as higher education and the federal government.

Your compatriots here have insisted that one needs to READ the law to understand it. Following that logic, READING the lawsuit would help dissuade ridiculous comments like yours. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.4    one month ago
The same way you equate it with a religion. 

Wrong. Freedom of Religion is spelled out as a seperate right: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:"

It's called the First Amendment.


The problem is that it penalizes teachers for holding open, inclusive discussions on multiple topics. There is NOTHING to stop a parent from attacking a teacher for being in the classroom when a STUDENT speaks on the prohibited topics. 

Parents are not in the classroom, however they did get a good look at what is being taught when the damn Teacher's union had kids trying to learn from home.


You're making an uninformed assumption Vic. 

I'm not making any assumption. There has been a widening of ideologically driven course work and textbooks in government-run primary and secondary schools. And as we are all so well aware there has long been a war on true academic freedom and free speech at the university level.


Your compatriots here have insisted that one needs to READ the law to understand it. 

And "free speech" has NOTHING to do with curriculum. We don't embellish historical facts, nor do we use racism to fight a percieved racism.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.6  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    one month ago

If white students feel guilty for past deeds and even now present deeds of mean, and down-right evil, white people or any other people for that matter, then guilt is appropriate. We will not permit some conservatives to hide from their past mistreatment of minorities in this country.  Call it CRT or whatever the hell you wish. Your cruelty will be known and reckoned with even though you try to be shameless.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.7  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    one month ago

Keep up the conservative effort to undermine progress in this country. It's a living for sure! Hell, it is a full-career move. The country will simply crawl forward or stall until we all are dead and gone.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.1.6    one month ago
If white students feel guilty

You mean if hate filled teachers convince them to feel that way.

You don't fight racism with hate & racism.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.1.7    one month ago
effort to undermine progress in this country

There is little support for what you call progress or the ideology behind it. It is like the revolution of the Bolshevics - nobody really supported them yet they took over the country. We are not going to let it happen here.

Sorry!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    one month ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:"

WTF does speech have to do with exercising religion Vic? 

Parents are not in the classroom, however they did get a good look at what is being taught when the damn Teacher's union had kids trying to learn from home.

Do you have something to say that actually addresses my comment Vic? 

I'm not making any assumption.

Yes you did Vic. You made false assumptions about the effect of the law. 

There has been a widening of ideologically driven course work and textbooks in government-run primary and secondary schools. And as we are all so well aware there has long been a war on true academic freedom and free speech at the university level.

Seriously, that blather has nothing to do with what the law says Vic. 

And "free speech" has NOTHING to do with curriculum. We don't embellish historical facts, nor do we use racism to fight a percieved racism.

That's pretty fucking funny since you started your comment with religion Vic. Many private schools curriculum includes religious instruction based on that same 1st Amendment thingy you cited. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.11  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.8    one month ago
You don't fight racism with hate & racism.

If there are hate-filled teachers out there then I see a problem. But calling teachers "hate-filled" as a matter of opinion and not fact won't get us anywhere.

Pray tell, Vic, with what do YOU fight racism and hate?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @2.1.11    one month ago

You don't talk about it....

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.13  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    one month ago

That comment not deserve a sincere reply.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.14  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.12    one month ago

Please elaborate, dear TG. I don't follow your meaning quite yet.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.15  XXJefferson51  replied to  CB @2.1.7    one month ago

CRT, Anti-racism, BLM: Legacies Of A Slave Mentality

Opinion

Oct 21, 2021 12:01 AM
52d472b0-e8fa-4b89-8f25-5a9248a537f5-500x250.jpg

Source: AP Photo/Markus Schreiber

These days, “black oppression” is a tactic used in dirty politics. But in my early life, it was very real. The Jim Crow days were a landscaped wilderness between slavery and freedom – a mirage of freedom.  

But I’ll spare the stories. It’s over. Holding on to that stuff is like walking around with a corpse on your back. Drag it around for too long and your soul rots from moral gangrene – a spirit of revenge if you have power; a spirit of resentment if you don’t.  If you have both, you become Maxine Waters. So, no. 

During the civil rights days, any time MLK wanted to give Southern blacks hope that freedom would come someday, he used the imagery of the Hebrew slaves escaping Egypt, enduring the wilderness, and finally reaching the Promised Land.  

“We’ve got some difficult days ahead,” said this modern-day Moses. “But it doesn’t matter with me now.  Because I’ve been to the mountaintop.  … And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.”

Today, 156 years after the death of slavery and after Jim Crow’s been a corpse for 56 years, the question of whether American blacks have reached the “Promised Land,” remarkably, depends on whom you ask. 

It reminds me of the real Moses who was famous for his headaches while leading ex-slaves with two different attitudes toward their predicament.  Most saw the glass as half empty; a few, half full…

read more:

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.16  XXJefferson51  replied to  CB @2.1.11    one month ago
Small victories are still victories, and worth celebrating. So, as we — all Americans — come to realize just how much critical race theory has come to permeate our discourse and our dialogues, we are fighting back. We are reclaiming that most self-evident of truths— all men are created equal.

Last week, the Ohio State Board of Education repealed an “anti-racism” resolution and replaced it with something far more meaningful. Gone was the language of division, blame, and condemnation; in its place was offered something more hopeful .

The Board stood against teachings that “seek to ascribe circumstances or qualities, such as collective guilt, moral deficiency, or racial bias, to a whole race or group of people.” The Board also expressed “its unwavering commitment to excellence in education for all, education that empowers each student to reach his or her full potential” not as a member of a particular race – as was woven throughout Resolution 20 – but simply “as a member of the next great generation of Ohioans.”

As a native Ohioan and a former mayor of Cincinnati, it pains me to see how critical race theory is used to both reframe our history, our conversations and even alter the courses of action we must take to improve the lives of all of our children. 

I denounce this educational fad, not as a Black man, but as an American.

Allow me to explain just one way in which critical race theory undermines — rather than upholds — educational aspirations in Ohio and in the United States.

Leading critical race theorist Ibram X. Kendi declares that “Racial discrimination is the sole cause of racial disparities in this country and in the world at large.” That statement was written in his book, “Stamped From the Beginning,” and is also prevalent in the version of the book he put out for kids: “STAMPED: Racism, Anti-Racism and You.” That version also makes clear to our children that “Racist ideas, along with economic greed, are central to the formation of this nation, its laws, policies, and practices. Meritocracy and the American Dream narrative are rooted in whiteness.”

And here is the great injustice of this insidious belief: it lets too many of us off the hook...

read more:
 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.17  XXJefferson51  replied to  CB @2.1.13    one month ago

I gave you highlights of the opinions of two African American writers opposed to CRT while defending MLK Jr. and America.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.18  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.16    one month ago

Okay. It's late. And I ain't in the mood to read a Townhall "perspective." Good night, Jefferson (and "company").

Good night, 'Family.' Sleep tight! Until we meet again! Peace out.

 
 
 
MsMarple
Freshman Silent
2.1.19  MsMarple  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    one month ago
And "free speech" has NOTHING to do with curriculum.

why not?
I'd hate my children being taught by Bible thumpers, although BT's have the right to yakk. BT's already yakking everywhere regardless - the news, the schools, the 4th of July Parades.

thank the LORD we don't live in the Bible Belt, where creationism is superior to evolution in the schools. 
Just saying. One can believe in God but not in your organized Evangelical religion/Churchy/TVevangelist stuff.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @2.1.14    one month ago

If one does not talk about racism there is no racism to be overcome...amiright?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.21  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.20    one month ago

Not so. 'Young Jedi'! (Giggle bot!)

Reminds me of the one about a tree falling in the woods: Does it create a sound if no one hears it?!  (Yes, it acts according to its routine when crashing.)

Additionally, an act of racism need not verbalize at all. Actions 'speak' louder, it has been observed.  jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.22  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.15    one month ago

Yeah, well, I am going to dismiss anything Townhall has to offer about race. BTW, your link in the comment is non-functional.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.23  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.16    one month ago

But are all men in the United States treated equally? As to the whole rigamarole about CRT, I have yet to fully understand what is going on East Coast/Mid-west wise. From California, we do not have the "hic-cups' that plague some people - rightly or wrongly. That makes it hard to comprehend and 'complex' in piecing together.

One thing I know, Black conservatives don't have much more validity with me than other some conservatives - especially (you guessed it) if they are silent onTrump or supporters of that one. All such people I keep at 'arm-length' as a rule. Until I have time to properly vet what they write and say.

That's all on this one for now anyway.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.24  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.17    one month ago

Whatever, "Brandon!"

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
3  Duck Hawk    one month ago

It's not being taught. So why did Oklahoma pass this law? It would appear that they want to hide their racist past, in regards to their treatment of Native Americans and their role in the Civil War (yet another State the fought to preserve the right to enslave another human being.)

 So not a frivolous lawsuit.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
3.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Duck Hawk @3    one month ago
It would appear that they want to hide their racist past, in regards to their treatment of Native Americans and their role in the Civil War (yet another State the fought to preserve the right to enslave another human being.) 

Oklahoma was non existent during the Civil War .. it was considered 'Indian Territory' .. sooo 'um .. nope NOT "yet another State that fought to preserve the right to enslave another human being"

Critical Race Theory  .. do you know what it is?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Duck Hawk @3    one month ago
It's not being taught. So why did Oklahoma pass this law?

Probably for the same reason they've outlawed Sharia Law, despite the fact it's not happening either.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
3.2.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2    one month ago

Excellent point .. Oklahoma did outlaw Sharia law .. it was deemed unconstitutional due to the separation of church and state .. although Sharia is the law of Islam which is a religion...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

This is a political lawsuit, it has no legal merit.  One  need only look at the law itself to know there is no attempt to forbid teaching subjects or coverup anything .

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
5  Greg Jones    one month ago

What's the present day value of wallowing in the sins of the past?

This is pure political posturing.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @5    one month ago
What's the present day value of wallowing in the sins of the past?

284320-George-Santayana-Quote-Those-who-do-not-remember-the-past-are.jpg

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1    one month ago

Remember yes, wallow no.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.1    one month ago
Remember yes, wallow no.  

Question asked, and answered, you may continue your spinning now.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.2    one month ago

I made the point I intended to make. I stand with the Oklahoma law.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.2  Sunshine  replied to  Greg Jones @5    one month ago
What's the present day value of wallowing in the sins of the past?

White guilt and reparations.  Start it young so by the time they are old enough to vote the seeds will be planted.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sunshine @5.2    one month ago

Perfect example

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.2  CB   replied to  Sunshine @5.2    one month ago

Noone gives a damn about guilt-tripping Whites. Run from your history all you wish some conservatives! This won't be the first time, you've shitted on people and tried to hide from the "shitty deals" done!

It will always be an anchor gripping the souls of your 'generations' if only as myth and legend. Because once again, some conservatives (always the 'spoilers') want to deny truths and instead delude themselves into thinking "Ain't I Great?"

Hell no, some conservatives! You all ain't Great! In fact, some conservatives are the vexations and boiling bumps on the butt of history, because from day to day, issue to issue, y'all never miss any opportunity to pretend to be leaders of people who simply want you to go tell the truth, let it stand as truth, and generally just fall silent in the face of truth!

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.2.3  Sunshine  replied to  CB @5.2.2    one month ago

Nothing in this law prevents teaching the truth.

Educate yourself on the topic before flying into an irrational rant.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sunshine @5.2.3    one month ago

Educate yourself on the topic before flying into an irrational rant.

Then there would be no objections to the statute. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.5  CB   replied to  Sunshine @5.2.3    one month ago

I will not be patronized today.

As to some conservatives looking to run into the future by hiding from the past: It won't be allowed to happen. Some conservatives, our laws will reflect the truths about all activities in red-states which occurred. There will be little or nothing of importance to be known that won't be known. Even if some conservatives write it out of local books, your children will have it explained to them by a truthful nation all around and on every side!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Sunshine @5.2    one month ago
White guilt and reparations.

Reparations are certainly the end goal.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.6    one month ago

Do you believe that black families in this country lost generational wealth due to segregation and racial prejudice? 

The banking system of this country funneled black home buyers into less lucrative properties. I read a story about a black ww2 vet and his wife who wanted to buy a home in Leavittown, the post ww2 Long Island development. 

Levittown - US History Scene

Before the sale of Levittown homes began, the sales agents were aware that no applications from black families would be accepted. As a result, American veterans who wished to purchase a home in Levittown were unable to do so if they were black.

The home values in Leavittown rose dramatically, in some cases providing "generational wealth" to the families of owners.  The black vet and those like him were left out.

Who is going to pay for these injustices? No one?  Tough luck, eh? 

By the theories of the case you propose, no past injustices can ever be addressed. 

The banking system in America redlined black home buyers and prevented them from buying in certain areas and neighborhoods, areas where property values increased, and kept these blacks in areas where property values decreased. Who is going to right these injustices? No one?

Of course there should be collective "white guilt". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.7    one month ago
Of course there should be collective "white guilt". 

Of course, many won't feel guilt over something they had no control over, never participated in, and might not have even been alive for.

Good for them for sane thinking.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.8    one month ago

If a group of people were systematically disadvantaged by the institutions of the United States, then the United States should make amends. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.10  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.6    one month ago

So what? Was red-lining, block-busting, and government programs designed and implemented to hold minorities out of the wealth stream of this country occurring or not?  Jack_Tx please proceed!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.11  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.7    one month ago
Of course there should be collective "white guilt"

I don't need white guilt from innocent people whose hands are actually clean of racial practices. We simply need some conservatives to stop all deceptive practices that won't and don't make life work for all the citizens of this country!

Guilt derives from those who have in history and those individuals, companies, and institutions presently benefitting from blocking wealth creation, equality, and equity in minority communities.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.12  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.10    one month ago
So what? Was red-lining, block-busting, and government programs designed and implemented to hold minorities out of the wealth stream of this country occurring or not?  Jack_Tx please proceed!

They happened and they stopped decades ago.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
5.2.13  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.9    one month ago

Maybe you can start by throwing some cash at them.

Leave the rest of us alone.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.14  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.12    one month ago

It happened within our life time, Jack. People who were red-lined against are alive today and have not been properly dealt with under the law, Jack. "Block-busting" (or lying on minorities for profit) still happens. And "cheating" minorities out of their property sell values is happening right now.

Sorry, that you think that because they are minorities that they should just "get along now." For the record, White Americans bring 'cases' of injustice to court and get restitution, Jack (as a consequence of "whiteness" it's a given.)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.15  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @5.2.13    one month ago

If reparations were ever to be given, you would have no choice in the matter, you would pay up just like everyone else, unless you became a tax cheat.

I think that eventually some form of reparations will go forward, but it is very complicated and would also have to include Native Americans, and it is a long way off most likely. We will probably all be dead and gone by the time something gets done. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.16  CB   replied to  bugsy @5.2.13    one month ago

Caustic remark, aside. Maybe we (all) can keep going to court and applying for justice under the Rule of Law!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.17  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.15    one month ago

That is the problem. Some conservatives don't want to do what is right by minorities. Greedy clutchers of other people rights and privileges and benefits. It's sickeningly indefensible, and yet they try as the day is long.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.18  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @5.2.14    one month ago

Many white people are personally insulted when the long lived institutional racism of America is pointed out to them. 

They think they are being individually blamed, which is not the case. 

There are people in this country, most likely in the millions, who think that white responsibility for racism ended on the day the slaves were freed in 1865. To them, whatever happened to blacks and other people of color after 1865 was their own fault. They ignore the 150 years since, most of which was an era of harsh segregation and discrimination which was almost as damaging to the hopes of people of color as slavery was. 

We are awash in willful ignorance. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.19  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.7    one month ago
Of course there should be collective "white guilt". 

Why?

We've been through this, John.  I don't feel guilty for stuff I had zero control over.  Most of the shit you describe stopped before I was born.  

You also don't give a tinker's damn about black people, or you'd be talking about the active discrimination that goes on today instead of wallowing in misplaced self-loathing for sins of a bygone era.  But examining what's happening today might mean you actually have to change your behavior instead of just spending somebody else's money.

I'm not going to agree to finance your crusade so you can give yourself some fleeting relief from your own neurotic emotions.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.19    one month ago

I havent insulted you much, but if you want I will be happy to start. 

Your own individual "guilt'' , or not, over racism and discrimination is irrelevant to whether or not past injustices need to be corrected.   Get that through your thick head. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.21  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.18    one month ago

It is willful ignorance borne out of benefiting off others - in this case minorities. These whites (conservatives) are not dumb, they hear from their white (liberals) counterparts - and I know for a fact white people value other white people points of view more than some minorities. That is, white people listen to other white people in large part.

But what this is, is some conservatives letting their 'race' flag fly high and their "wilding out" to say we don't give a shit; we did it and we won't apologize or plan to ever make it equal or equitable. And so - get over it.

We will not. We will not forget and they will not either!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.20    one month ago

please describe how you can correct past injustices.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.23  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.14    one month ago
It happened within our life time, Jack.

Decades ago.  I was 2 years old when redlining was outlawed.

In the 50+ years since, the median net worth of black families has barely moved.  Why is that?

Sorry, that you think that 

Don't try to tell me what I think. You absolutely have no idea.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.24  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.20    one month ago
I havent insulted you much, but if you want I will be happy to start. 

The hell you haven't.

Your own individual "guilt'' , or not, over racism and discrimination is irrelevant to whether or not past injustices need to be corrected.

As is yours.  Was the irony intentional?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.25  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.11    one month ago
We simply need some conservatives to stop all deceptive practices that won't and don't make life work for all the citizens of this country!

What do you propose?

Which practices, specifically?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.26  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.23    one month ago
Decades ago.  I was 2 years old when redlining was outlawed.

You? It's the collective "our," Jack. Moreover, it should never happen again! We will not let the collective "us" forget or whitewash red-lining out of history. And Americans need to be compensated for what was stolen from them by institutional racism, Jack. 

Did you watch the video @8.3.13, Jack. It's not a joke, or satire.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.27  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @5.2.21    one month ago

www.marketwatch.com   /story/heres-why-black-families-have-struggled-for-decades-to-gain-wealth-2019-02-28

Here’s why black families have struggled for decades to gain wealth

Darrick Hamilton, , Trevon Logan 7-8 minutes

DOI:   10.1093/qje/qjw014 ,   Show   Details

Black History Month has become the time to reflect on all the progress black Americans have made, but the sobering reality is that when it comes to wealth — the paramount indicator of economic security — there has been virtually no progress in the last 50 years.

While there is no magic bullet for racism, access to wealth, and the security to pass it down from one generation to the next, would go a long way toward changing the economic trajectory for blacks.

As researchers who study   historical and contemporary racial inequality, we mostly conceive of wealth as a maker of success, but its true value is functional: the independence and economic security that it provides.

Out of slavery

Until the end of legal slavery in the U.S., enslaved people were considered valuable assets and a form of wealth. In the South, entrepreneurs and slave owners took loans out against the collateral value of their property in the form of people to fund new businesses.

The U.S. government has a long history of facilitating wealth for white Americans. From at least   the Land Act of 1785 , Congress sought to transfer wealth to citizens on terms that were quite favorable. In some instances, land could be attained by the luck of the draw —   but only if you were a white man .

It was never the case that a white asset-based middle class simply emerged. Rather, it was government policy, and to some extent literal government giveaways, that provided whites the finance, education, land and infrastructure to accumulate and pass down wealth.

While   the 1866 Homestead Act   sought to include blacks specifically in the transfer of public lands to private farmers,   discrimination and poor implementation doomed the policy . Black politicians during Reconstruction attempted to use tax policy   to force land on the market , but this was met with violent resistance.

While blacks did make gains in wealth acquisition after chattel slavery ended, the pace was slow and started from a base of essentially nothing. Whites could use violence to force blacks from their property via   the terrorism of whitecapping , where blacks were literally run out of town and their possessions stolen. This includes the race riots, as   in Memphis in 1866   and   Tulsa in 1921 , which systematically destroyed or stole the wealth blacks had acquired, and   lowered the rate of black innovation . Black wealth was tenuous without the rule of law to prevent unlawful seizures.

By 1915,   black property owners in the South   had   less than one-tenth of the wealth of white landowners .

This trend remained stable for the next 50 years. In 1965, 100 years after Emancipation, blacks were more than 10% of the population, but held less than 2% of the wealth in the U.S., and   less than 0.1% of the wealth in stocks . Wealth had remained fundamentally unchanged and structurally out of reach of the vast majority of blacks.

Housing assistance and education

These racially exclusionary systems endured well into the 20th century.

A complicit Federal Housing Administration permitted the use of restrictive covenants, which forbade home sales to blacks; redlining, which defined black communities as hazardous areas, directly reducing property values and increasing rates; and general housing and lending discrimination against African-Americans   through the 20th   and   21st centuries .

Moreover, blacks were largely excluded from the New Deal and World War II public policies, which were responsible for the asset creation of an American middle class.

The GI Bill is one example of several postwar policies in which the federal government invested heavily in the greatest growth of a white asset-based American middle class, to the exclusion of blacks.   Historian Ira Katznelson   documents that, by 1950, via the GI Bill, the American government spent more on education than the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe. But most American colleges and universities were closed to blacks, or open to only but a few in token numbers.

Meanwhile, GI benefits in education, employment, entrepreneurship and housing assistance were all distributed overwhelmingly toward whites. In the Jim Crow segregated South, there was a truncated housing supply. These factors limited the ability of historically black colleges and universities to   accommodate the education and housing needs of black veterans .

It is important to note that it was never the case that a white asset-based middle class simply emerged. Rather, it was government policy, and to some extent literal government giveaways, that provided whites the finance, education, land and infrastructure to accumulate and pass down wealth. In contrast, blacks were largely excluded from these wealth generating benefits. When they were able to accumulate land and enterprise, it was often stolen, destroyed or seized by government complicit theft, fraud and terror.

Building new wealth

Nonetheless, blacks have still been able to overcome tremendous odds, particularly in acquiring education. Social science research indicates that   blacks attain more years of schooling and education credentials than whites from families with comparable resources . In other words, blacks place a premium on education as a means of mobility.

Despite this investment, the racial wealth gap expands at higher levels of education. Black families where the head graduated from college have less wealth than white families where the   head dropped out of high school .

Rather than education leading to wealth, it is wealth that facilitates the acquisition of an expensive education. The essential value of wealth is its functional role; the financial security to take risks and the financial agency that wealth affords is transformative.

In our view, education alone cannot address the centuries-long exclusion of blacks from the benefits of wealth-generating policies and the extraction of whatever wealth they may have. The most just approach would be a comprehensive reparation program that acknowledges these grievances and offers compensatory restitution, including ownership of land and other means of production.

Darrick Hamilton is executive director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University. Trevon Logan is the Hazel C. Youngberg Distinguished Professor of Economics at The Ohio State University. This was first published by   The Conversation   — “ Why wealth equality remains out of reach for black Americans ”.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.28  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.20    one month ago

Emphatically.

@5.2.23 Don't try to tell me what I think. You absolutely have no idea.

And so, Jack_Tx tries to tell you what he thinks you think and give a damn about!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.29  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.25    one month ago

Jack_Tx, I am not about to consume my energy to placate you and some others here for shit that is obvious to blind people with functioning brains and common-sense.

Moreover, a list of what is wrong with some conservatives is beyond the scope of this article.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.30  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.27    one month ago
In contrast, blacks were largely excluded from these wealth generating benefits. When they were able to accumulate land and enterprise, it was often stolen, destroyed or seized by government complicit theft, fraud and terror.

Yes. And that is what some conservatives want to avoid discussing. Even when government programs were finally allowed to provide aid, some conservatives would bitch and moan (like they do about abortion, women wage equality, affirmative action, and damn near all progress) about it until they could make it ineffective or atrophied. For example: Reagan and his anecdotal "sensational telling about the welfare queen. Find one or two instances of some deed and blow it out of proportions as the new norm.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.31  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.23    one month ago

Redlining caused a loss of generational wealth, Jack. It was a firm 'set-back,' Jack. While we were oppressed, some conservatives enjoyed "American pie, flag-waving, American 'Way,' and liberty and justice" for some conservatives, Jack!

But you see to have this idea that some conservatives have been playing 'nice' with minorities since red-lining ended. That has not been the whole story, Jack. Indeed, we have had all kinds of national and cultural hurdles to climb since then, Jack. Again, beyond the scope of this discussion. You will just have to go look into it yourself.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.32  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.27    one month ago
While blacks did make gains in wealth acquisition after chattel slavery ended, the pace was slow and started from a base of essentially nothing. Whites could use violence to force blacks from their property via   the terrorism of whitecapping , where blacks were literally run out of town and their possessions stolen.

Minorities, with Black Americans at point, have caught a great deal of hell in our country. And we still do. Just look at Mitch McConnell, "whitecapping" the vote in D.C. with the aid of other some conservatives in congress and in governorships. Yet, they SAY they want justice and equality for all with their lying lips.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
5.2.33  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.15    one month ago

They are already being given...in the form of affirmative action, welfare benefits, subsidies for many things. What more do you think should be given?

I say nothing.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
5.2.34  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.20    one month ago
I havent insulted you much

John, seriously....

It's your forte'

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.35  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.29    one month ago
Jack_Tx, I am not about to consume my energy to placate you and some others here for shit that is obvious to blind people with functioning brains and common-sense.

What shit is that exactly?   And why would you imagine I care whether you placate anyone or not?

Moreover, a list of what is wrong with some conservatives is beyond the scope of this article.

So you continue to claim.

In the context of this discussion, it appears as though you consider that horrible, evil, nefarious group to include anyone who doesn't agree to hand out free money based on race. 

Do correct me if I've misread that.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.36  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.35    one month ago

Let's not waste time with 'unhelpful back and forth.' I choose not to lecture you on commonsense, American history, racial inequality, or politics of the past. If that makes you feel "bigger" and "stronger" than me—it's not my fault (and it's highly probable not truth), nevertheless.

I thank for the distraction, but I can't accept the invitation this time.

As for "free money" - here comes that old canard again. Tell me, just how much money do you think you have earned and benefits you have received because of of minorities living, working, and striving in this country, Jack? 

Just how much money accumulated in this country belongs to just some conservatives in your 'guesstimation,' Jack_Tx. Give me a 'ball-park' amount. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.37  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.31    one month ago
Redlining caused a loss of generational wealth, Jack. It was a firm 'set-back,' Jack. While we were oppressed, some conservatives enjoyed "American pie, flag-waving, American 'Way,' and liberty and justice" for some conservatives, Jack! But you see to have this idea that some conservatives have been playing 'nice' with minorities since red-lining ended. That has not been the whole story, Jack. Indeed, we have had all kinds of national and cultural hurdles to climb since then, Jack. Again, beyond the scope of this discussion. You will just have to go look into it yourself.

You have yet to set out a suggestion for resolution.

You also have yet to mention any of the current, ongoing issues destroying the ability of black Americans to build wealth, like the vast disparity in the quality of education available in white public schools vs black ones....or how our public schools convince young black men that their primary value to society is as gladiators on a gridiron so we can watch them crush their skulls on Friday night while we pretend to teach them math on Tuesday morning. 

You've been sucked into John's vortex of past offenses, which always ends with complete non-solutions that extend and cement the underclass status of black Americans.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.38  Jack_TX  replied to  bugsy @5.2.33    one month ago
They are already being given...in the form of affirmative action, welfare benefits, subsidies for many things. What more do you think should be given? I say nothing.

I'd say a decent education, for starters.  Which they don't get now.

Public high schools rubber stamp their diplomas and send them into the world without a chance in hell to compete.  Look at the ridiculous discrepancy in SAT scores between black kids and white kids.  It's criminal.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.18    one month ago
They ignore the 150 years since, m

And you ignore the billions of dollars and decades worth of affirmative action benefits, minority set asides for contractors, community development grants etc etc.....

I

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.40  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.37    one month ago

Resolutions? Some conservatives are the problem, Jack. Not "team remedy!"  We don't need some conservatives to fix black education: just get the hell out of the way, Jack!

How dare you insult black athletes! We have numerous black intellectuals throughout our history in this country; granted we would have more such inventors and high achievers if we did not have to confront and strive with some conservatives for the duration of our lives.

But you just showed me something that is in your head and yes, I got the visual, Jack. You're bitter. We've heard that canard about the black performers before: "singing and jivin."

Well, you know what Jack. It kept us alive and ultimately we clothe and feed our families (and started record labels too) in a country that tried to pigeon-hole us and staple minorities to beneath the wage floor. Oops! We have black and other minority millionaires and billionaires. Hell, our rappers are doing quite well too - they 'eat' sufficiency in our society for 'poorly educated' —"negroes."

As for the "underclass" status, don't fret. When some conservatives get out of the way with our help; we will see who is permanently 'down and out' finally for real.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.41  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.39    one month ago

How many billions of dollar programs were instituted to help some conservatives built wealth (off the hard work of minorities), Sean? Remember, you did not need to manipulate the programs, as a supreme court justice once put it, blacks (and other minorities) have no rights and privileges that a white man has to respect! Thus, som conservatives did not respect us then and did not respect us during the benefit programs, contract set-asides, or development grants.

Oh, you think we did not know? (We did!) Yes,we watched and endured these 'tests, trials, and tribulations' of some conservatives doing all they could to minimize, evaluate, 'cut the heart out of,' and bad-mouth the good meant to build minorities up.

Oh and btw the way; it was not just some conservative money involved! It was state, federal, and local funds-which comes from the whole of society. Some conservatives got/get their share too (and a lot of it at that)!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.42  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.40    one month ago
Resolutions? Some conservatives are the problem, Jack. Not "team remedy!"  We don't need some conservatives to fix black education: just get the hell out of the way, Jack!

Tell us what they're stopping you from doing?

How dare you insult black athletes!

I didn't.  I accused the institutions that exploit them.  Read it again.  I coached black athletes for 30 years.  I've seen the exploitation first hand, hundreds of times.

Well, you know what Jack. It kept us alive and ultimately we clothe and feed our families (and started record labels too) in a country that tried to pigeon-hole us and staple minorities to beneath the wage floor. Oops! We have black and other minority millionaires and billionaires. Hell, our rappers are doing quite well too - they 'eat' sufficiency in our society for 'poorly educated' —"negroes."

So black millionaires are either athletes or rappers....   Niiiiiice.  I'm guessing we can throw comedians and actors in, as well, yes?   Thank you for making my point.  

By contrast, white millionaires are investment bankers or business owners or cardiac surgeons or orthodontists or car dealers or real estate agents.  But as often, they're just ordinary people who worked a pretty good job and understood money enough to put it to work in their 401(k) or IRA or maybe the rent house they bought.

And then we teach our kids how to do that.

As for the "underclass" status, don't fret. When some conservatives get out of the way with our help; we will see who is permanently 'down and out' finally for real.

When we start to educate your kids the same way we educated mine, and we start to put the same expectations on your kids as we do mine, the underclass status will disappear very quickly.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.43  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.42    one month ago
So black millionaires are either athletes or rappers....   Niiiiiice.  I'm guessing we can throw comedians and actors in, as well, yes?   Thank you for making my point.

Have I made your point, Jack. Is say, Oprah Winfrey; a 'rapper' or athlete? I will let you decide. Furthermore, don't ever confront me with your ridiculous criticism of how good people who are not thugs, robbers, liars, pimps, and 'hos," and so forth provide food, shelter, clothing, and prosperity for themselves in a society where they diligently are trying to live under the rules of the game developed and kept in place by a majority of white male domination.  Domination of recent which is reverting to power-grabs, insularity, and insincerity as a means to control and setback 'Others.'

Other than that, you are just about to piss me off with your "better than thou" comparisons of unequal realities - as though you can't understand what the hell goes on in this country.

As for the rest of your comment; one might get an impression there are no poor, miserable, uneducated 'Whites' in this country; is that true, Jack?

Lastly, where do you get off implying that the good in this country stems from White people alone? Where in this country are those lines of distinction on ideas, concepts, and discoveries - care to point them out to me, us?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.44  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @5.2.26    one month ago

www.businessinsider.com   /welfare-policy-created-white-wealth-largely-leaving-black-americans-behind-2020-8

How decades of US welfare policies lifted up the white middle class and largely excluded Black Americans

Marguerite Ward 19-24 minutes   8/11/2020


  • Financiers, business leaders , and   regular folks   are increasingly calling on political leaders to reshape capitalism and address rampant racial inequality in the US.
  • As policymakers try to address the coronavirus pandemic, experts point to the ways past US policies boosted quality of life for white Americans while leaving Black Americans behind.
  • Researchers agree that white Americans greatly benefited from New Deal programs and post-World War II p olicy, while Black Americans were discriminated against; t hen, when Black Americans started to access welfare benefits at a higher rate starting in the 1970s, there was backlash among conservatives.
  • These policies have had a cumulative effect over generations and help explain the massive wealth gap between Black and white Americans and the reason   Black Americans are overrepresented in welfare programs.
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories .

When President Donald Trump met with the Congressional Black Caucus in 2018, the topic of welfare reform came up. One member of the caucus told Trump that enforcing stricter rules would be detrimental to her constituents, "Not all of whom are Black," according to   NBC News .

The president is said to have replied, "Really? Then what are they?" apparently assuming that a welfare recipient couldn't be white.

In fact, far more white people have benefited from US welfare programs over the years — reflecting their greater share of the population — while Black people and other people of color have been denied them in various ways, multiple historians and researchers tell Business Insider.

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the underbelly of American inequality in many ways, with people of color disproportionately likely to be   laid off, to be on the financial brink , and to   die from the virus . That has helped prompt a growing chorus of   financiers, business leaders , and   regular folks   to call for a reimagining of American capitalism and for moves to end racial inequality. Some top economists are calling for a " New New Deal " specifically targeting inequality, a platform to which the Democratic presidential candidate   Joe Biden   seems open.

If the country is to move forward in trying to lift Americans out of unemployment and poverty, policymakers might consider who has benefited most from past welfare policies and how such policies have helped produce today's world.

Business Insider talked to four economic researchers and historians, and analyzed the past 90 years of welfare policy, when considering the question of who the status quo actually benefits.

For you

Sanford Schram , a political-science professor at CUNY Hunter, who wrote "Disciplining the Poor" and "Hard White," puts it bluntly: "I do think the federal government has been complicit in the perpetuation of race-based discrimination that has led to African Americans lagging behind whites. No question about it."

The New Deal brought jobs to Americans, but different kinds of jobs for different races

The US government has spent trillions of dollars trying to prop up its economy during the coronavirus pandemic, but it has stopped short of a " wartime economy "-style mobilization or the kind of massive public-works program that   some experts have said is badly needed   to stem double-digit unemployment.

But the Black Lives Matter movement — given new urgency after George Floyd's killing by the police in Minneapolis in late May — has exposed   a separate problematic legacy   of the New Deal, the series of policies enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to get the US out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. It was introduced in an era defined by segregation and explicit racism.

It's true that Roosevelt appointed several Black leaders to prominent leadership positions within his administration, known as the "Black Cabinet," and his policies helped make thousands of jobs newly available to Black Americans, but as Ibram X. Kendi points out in "Stamped from the Beginning," policies enacted at the time reflected a racist culture.

When the New Deal got Americans back to work, white Americans got the first pick at jobs, and when Black Americans did get jobs, they were given lower wages, according to the   University of Houston's Digital History Project .

"State and local governments administered almost all federal New Deal programs, and many of these state and local government leaders, especially in the South, were virtually all white ... and racist,"   Gary Orfield , a professor of education, law, political science, and urban planning at the University of California at Los Angeles, told Business Insider.

For you

5f2c34734e52b73195251d77?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp

State and local governments administered New Deal program benefits — an obvious problem in the South, which was segregated at the time. Bettmann/Getty Images

Also, Black people were   excluded   from key   benefits   created during this period. The Social Security Act of 1935, for instance, prohibited domestic and agricultural workers (an outsize number of whom were Black or Latino) from receiving benefits.

Black workers were also excluded from progressive labor regulations passed during that time,   Paul Moreno , a history professor who is the dean of social sciences at Hillsdale College, told Business Insider.

Many unions had explicit clauses in their constitutions that said that only whites could be members. So you could have a situation where an employer was forced to bargain with an exclusively white union and he'd have to fire all of his Black employees.

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 — commonly known as the Wagner Act for Sen. Robert Wagner, who proposed it — bolstered the strength of worker unions, but many major unions of this era either excluded Black workers or discriminated against them.

"Many unions had explicit clauses in their constitutions that said that only whites could be members," Moreno said. "So you could have a situation where an employer was forced to bargain with an exclusively white union and he'd have to fire all of his Black employees."

Because discrimination was still legal when it came to jobs, Black Americans were routinely denied well-paying positions and were much more likely to be hired for low-wage work, according to Orfield, the professor at UCLA.

"A lot of policies were designed that simply left out Black Americans who were sharecroppers and were doing low-wage work, which was excluded from some of the labor regulations," he said.

For you

5f2c35aff34d055a8e791ecc?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp

A young boy in Greendale, Wisconsin, a greenbelt community constructed by the US Department of Agriculture as part of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Universal History Archive/Getty Images

Elsewhere in the economy, interpretation of New Deal policies wound up hurting Black Americans. The Federal Housing Administration was created in this era, with the goal of creating affordable housing for as many Americans as possible. But local interpretation of this mission resulted in "redlining," a policy in which mortgage credit was denied in majority-Black neighborhoods.

The FHA continued to encourage racist policies into the postwar era, when the American suburbs were being built. In 1948, the Supreme Court outlawed " restrictive covenants " — a clause that essentially prevented Black Americans from buying property from white owners — yet the FHA still encouraged builders to write them into their agreements well past 1948, according to Orfield.

5f2c372d3ad86144675c2e7c?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp

White tenants protesting African Americans moving into the Sojourner Truth Homes, a federal governmental housing project, in Detroit in February 1942. Corbis via Getty Images

White veterans of World War II were given zero-down-payment, 30-year guaranteed mortgages under the GI Bill.

"With zero cash, you, white veterans, could get into owning a brand-new home," Orfield told Business Insider. "That door was not open for Black and Latinos."

A house someone bought at the time for $12,000 or $15,000 in mortgage payments, he said, might be worth $300,000 decades later.

"That's a gigantic wealth creator and a gigantic middle-class escalator," he said, one Black Americans missed out on and couldn't pass along to their children.

For you

Welfare reform greatly benefited Black Americans — and was almost immediately unpopular for it

One of the largest government programs in the post-New Deal era, President Lyndon B. Johnson's " Great Society " sought to remedy the racial wealth gap. During the 1960s, the median Black family income rose 53%, while Black employment doubled in professional, technical, and clerical occupations, and average Black educational attainment increased by four years, University of Houston history professors   write . The proportion of Black people below the poverty line went from 55% in 1960 to just 27% by 1968.

5f2c3f085fa9a43427742dc6?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp

President Lyndon Johnson speaking with students from Public School 192 who were beneficiaries of his Head Start program, in Harlem, New York, in 1968. Afro American Newspapers/Gado/Getty Images

Even at the height of the Great Society, Black Americans constituted only about 27% of all welfare recipients, according to   Sundiata Keita Cha-Jua , an associate history professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Most recipients were white Americans.

"From the Great Society moving forward, one could say that white people, because of their numbers and percentage of the population, have always constituted the largest number of people" on welfare, Cha-Jua told Business Insider, adding that "Black people, Latinx, American Indians, because of their oppressed condition, have constituted a much greater percentage than their percent of the population."

But as the anti-discriminatory practices from Johnson's presidency were enforced and Black Americans were allowed to participate in new benefit programs, there was a dramatic shift in public perception about government subsidies — to the negative.

"Public assistance was not as demonized until African Americans began to exercise their right to use it, ironically," Schram said. "And that's when welfare started to be seen as this inferior program for nonwhite people who didn't play by the white middle-class rules of work and family."

This shift was propelled forward by President Ronald Reagan, whose campaign speeches about the   now-debunked   " welfare queen " stoked racist fear among white Americans.

original

President Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era of welfare reform. REUTERS/Joe Marquette

"He really tightened the eligibility requirements," Schram said. "He made it more difficult for you to get welfare even after you started to work."

For example, Reagan   cut spending   to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, which provided cash assistance to low-income children whose father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. This forced struggling mothers and families further into poverty,   research funded by The Ford Foundation found .

The social-welfare-policy researcher   Sandra Edmonds Crewe , who is the dean of Howard University's School of Social Work, described such policies by conservative policymakers as a direct response to Black participation in the system.

"There is always a backlash that comes after progression — always," Crewe told Business Insider, likening the backlash against welfare expansion to the resurgence of white nationalism in response to Barack Obama's presidency.

Instead of receiving an opportunity to be lifted out of poverty, many Black Americans remained disenfranchised.

Reagan's legacy, however, was solidified by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who promised to "change welfare as we have come to know it." By   replacing   the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, he dramatically reduced the size of welfare programs. "TANF really did change welfare as we knew it," Schram said.

original

President Bill Clinton promised to change welfare "as we have come to know it" — and he did. Ralph Alswang/Getty Images

Before Clinton, about 75% of people who were eligible for welfare were receiving it. But by 2000, four years after Clinton's program was enacted, only about 25% were, Schram's research found.

In other words, at a time when Black Americans were given significantly more access to public assistance, measures were enacted to make assistance harder to access.

"When we do get included in the welfare state, in the Great Society programs, we are stigmatized for it," Cha-Jua, who is Black, said.

How this legacy is playing out today

The racial wealth gap in the US not only persists — it's   growing . For every $100 in wealth held by a white family today, a Black family has just $10, per research from   the Federal Reserve's 2017 "Survey of Consumer Finances."

A recent analysis of homeownership by the   Fed   noted that homeownership by race seemed similar to the   wealth distribution by race .

The difference in homeownership can also be seen at the geographic level, per research from the   Urban Institute .

Today, white people still make up a plurality of those on welfare programs such as TANF or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. A Department of Agriculture report from November estimated that   35.7% of SNAP recipients in the 2018 fiscal year were white , 25.1% were Black, 16.7% were Hispanic, 3% were Asian, and 1.5% were Native American (0.8% were listed as multiple races, while 17.4% were listed as "race unknown").

Enrollment by race for Medicaid and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children show similar enrollment as those in SNAP.

Black people make up just 13.4% of the US population and are therefore overrepresented in welfare programs. When asked why this was the case, Crewe of Howard University had a simple answer: "systemic inequality."

Without more intervention, inequality will continue to reproduce itself, Crewe said. Orfield of UCLA agreed.

This is especially true today, as Congress decides whether to give Americans cash assistance after the temporary $600 increase weekly unemployment benefits expired July 31.

Black and brown workers are more likely to report being in financial hardship right now.

A   survey   by the organization Lean In with Survey Monkey in early April people found that Black women were twice as likely as white men to say they were laid off or furloughed during the pandemic. New   analysis   by the global advisory firm   Stout Risius Ross   found that only 26% of African American tenants said they felt highly confident they could pay their mortgage payments on time right now, compared with almost half of white Americans,   CNBC   reports.

"My view of this," Orfield said, "is if you're in a society that's completely stratified by race and ethnicity, basically what you've got is a system that guarantees inequality unless you specifically decide to change it."

For you

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.45  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.42    one month ago
white millionaires are investment bankers or business owners or cardiac surgeons or orthodontists or car dealers or real estate agents.  But as often, they're just ordinary people who worked a pretty good job and understood money enough to put it to work in their 401(k) or IRA or maybe the rent house they bought. And then we teach our kids how to do that

Again, one could get the impression that there are no 'poor Whites' or unemployed Whites (some with high-end degrees), or white-collar 'thugs' and criminals. Yet, all of those narratives are beyond the scope of this discussion (I keep telling you that, because it would require an expansion were we to dwell deeply and widely into relevant materials.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.46  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.44    one month ago

'They' know it. If not, it's not our fault because we can read what they dare not allow themselves to 'ingest.'

John, I want to 'pour' over your links slowly when I have some time (don't right now). Thank you for the information and good looking out! (Smile.)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.47  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @5.2.41    one month ago
Remember, you did not need to manipulate the programs, as a supreme court justice once put it, blacks (and other minorities) have no rights and privileges that a white man has to respect!

Which Justice said that? I'll bet it's not from the last 50 plus years of  the welfare era. 

 it was not just some conservative money involved! It was state, federal, and local funds-which comes from the whole of society.

Good thing I never claimed it was. Again, the idea that the US, state and local governments haven't spent billions in trying to help black people in the last 50 years is preposterous.   If you want to claim all the racist acts from generations go matter, than you have to stop pretending that nothing has been done in the last 50 years to remedy them. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.48  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.44    one month ago
with people of color disproportionately likely to be   laid off, to be on the financial brink , and to   die from the virus

That's impossible. According to newstalkers it's clear that only white republicans died from Covid and that those deaths should be celebrated because they cost Republicans vote. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.49  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.44    one month ago
Black people make up just 13.4% of the US population and are therefore overrepresented in welfare programs.

That little sentence, buried at the end, undercuts the entire premise  of the article.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.50  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.43    one month ago
Have I made your point, Jack.

Absolutely.  Doubled down on it.

Is say, Oprah Winfrey; a 'rapper' or athlete?

She falls under the "comedians and actors" tag.

I'm not sure how you don't understand what a shining example of racism this is.  Do you not see that there can only be a very limited number of entertainers and athletes who get wealthy?  Do you not understand that Kevin Hart is rich because he's unusual? How is this path possibly scalable?  It's not.  

Do you not understand that a Div I university can only award 12 basketball scholarships...but an unlimited number of academic ones?  Who do you think is getting those?  Do you imagine that black high school students are hearing about how their grades can pay for college, or do you realize that all the attention is on the athletes?  At least until they get hurt and they're of no use anymore.

Do you realize that of the black male athletes that do manage to get scholarships, nearly HALF don't graduate?  Do you know how they're steered into the easiest classes available, often without regard to degree requirements, because their eligibility to play is more important than their education? 

That's is happening today.  2021.  It didn't stop in 1968.

provide food, shelter, clothing, and prosperity for themselves

Are they?  The statistics say otherwise.  You've made extensive arguments that they're not able to provide prosperity for themselves because of institutional and individual racism.  So which is it?

Other than that, you are just about to piss me off with your "better than thou" comparisons of unequal realities - as though you can't understand what the hell goes on in this country.

Your anger level is your choice.  That doesn't change the fact that a huge amount of racism that goes on in this country is right under your nose, yet you don't see it, and apparently don't want to know.

As for the rest of your comment; one might get the impression there are no poor, miserable, uneducated 'Whites' in this country; is that true, Jack?

There are hundreds of millions of them.  Most have better opportunities than black people, and won't take them. 

How is that pertinent to this conversation?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.51  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.49    one month ago

Generally speaking , "welfare" eligibility is entirely based on income. If more blacks per capita receive "welfare" it is because more blacks per capita are poor. 

Sean, is it your position that the only thing that has left us with a too large black poverty rate is the failure of blacks to pull themselves up by their bootstraps ? 

How many black kids have a direct path into a trades union job when they turn 18 or 19.  I have multiple members in my white extended family who wanted to join a trades union when they finished high school, and because of "connections" through the family or through the neighborhood they were able to do so. 

How many black teenagers have that pathway?  My guess would be damn few. 

Your theory is "if only black people wouldnt be so black anymore they would get somewhere". 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.52  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.51    one month ago
f more blacks per capita receive "welfare" it is because more blacks per capita are poor. 

I agree John and that hasn't changed since the programs started..  The claim is that the US is "systematically racist" yet it's designed  massive governmental programs and set asides  that disproportionally benefit black people, the group that the government is supposedly oppressing. And welfare is just one such example.   Do you think an actual systematically racist government would design programs to disproportionally benefit the oppressed race?

our position that the only thing that has left us with a too large black poverty rate is the failure of blacks to pull themselves up by their bootstraps 

 If, as CRT tells us, white people designed our government to benefit themselves and oppress other races, how come Asians and Jews make more money per capita than any other racial groups?  The US has spent 50 plus years and billions of dollars to help black people and remove that excess poverty rate. 

ow many black teenagers have that pathway?  My guess would be damn few. 

But that's a vanishingly small sector of our economy and not how other marginalized and discriminated groups succeeded.  Blacks have access to affirmative actions programs in school and in the white collar workplace, not to mention minority set asides in contracting. Chicago  and cities like it has made sure black owned  businesses get a large chunk of their famously profitable city contracts even if they aren't the low bidder.  What is that if not a handout to generate wealth? 

Not to mention civil service jobs like police.  It's a very easy job to get and is a ticket to the middle class with a nice pension in most big cities. 

theory is "if only black people wouldnt be so black anymore they would get somewhere".

And your theory is black people are incapable of doing anything on their own and can only succeed if paternalistic white men give them things. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.53  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.47    one month ago

It was Chief Justice Taney of the Supreme Court 1857 (Dred Scott Decision). Of course, he would come off sounding like a complete fool, tone-deaf and blind, were he to say it today. However, he wrote it down and published it denoting how foundationally conservatives viewed Africans (Blacks) -enslaved or free- as not privy to the rights and privileges of a White man in our country.

Some conservatives have not been on the "solutions" team of history. Such people, as today, withhold themselves from remedies for minorities, or if they do participate in or out of legislation, they 'bolt' on it in the next 'cycle. Sean, don't give yourselves any or much credit for helping made minorities whole!

And I don't see you complaining about all the money and wealth some conservatives have amassed supplied by this country's government from its minorities. Or, simply lying on tax returns. Greedy for gain.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.54  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.50    one month ago
Is say, Oprah Winfrey; a 'rapper' or athlete?
She falls under the "comedians and actors" tag.

Meaning: Not a rapper or athlete, eh?  Next, produce a comedian segment starring Oprah!

Yes, I am confident that Oprah can act, but it's nice work if you can get it and she need not apologize for doing so. This "discussion" comes across petty and stupid. Actually, discounting how a large population make wealth. Unbelievable, Jack_Tx. Unreal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.55  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.2.26    one month ago
And Americans need to be compensated for what was stolen from them by institutional racism, Jack. 

And do you have a price in mind, and what is the criteria to receive it?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.56  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.50    one month ago
Do you not understand that a Div I university can only award 12 basketball scholarships...but an unlimited number of academic ones?  Who do you think is getting those?  Do you imagine that black high school students are hearing about how their grades can pay for college, or do you realize that all the attention is on the athletes?  At least until they get hurt and they're of no use anymore.

I will defer to "coach" experience since that is your area of expertise. Good for you. Maybe sports gave you the life you hoped? I wish you well. Now then, is it your contention that only black athletes achieve success in our community? Or, are you aware that we are steadily achieving success despite the meddlesome obstruction of some conservatives in our paths to progress?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.57  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.50    one month ago
You've made extensive arguments that they're not able to provide prosperity for themselves because of institutional and individual racism.  So which is it?

One thing that is exceedingly clear is some conservatives are standing in the way; get out of the way! More striving with nature's problems and less striving with some conservatives non-stop manufactured obstacles would be a big step forward in itself!  Black America succeeds in-spite of real-time hindrances and manufactured set-backs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.58  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.2.57    one month ago
More striving with nature's problems and less striving with some conservatives non-stop manufactured obstacles would be a big step forward in itself! 

So what obstacles are placed by conservatives that inhibit success?

And how do those "obstacles" actually prevent success?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.59  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.2.53    one month ago
Or, simply lying on tax returns. Greedy for gain.

Should I assume you have not an iota of proof for that bizarre claim?

No need to answer, it is strictly a rhetorical question.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.60  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.50    one month ago
As for the rest of your comment; one might get the impression there are no poor, miserable, uneducated 'Whites' in this country; is that true, Jack?
There are hundreds of millions of them.  Most have better opportunities than black people, and won't take them. How is that pertinent to this conversation?

How do you think, Jack_Tx. You are the one making comparisons to people-groups - struggling and pampered alike! 

Moreover, with all the favor, indulgences, education, and achievements of high achievers one would think there would not exist any thieves, cheaters, and white-collar criminals amongst their ranks: Why do you think harmful attitudes exist among 'successful people,' Jack_Tx?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.61  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.52    one month ago
Do you think an actual systematically racist government would design programs to disproportionally benefit the oppressed race?

Do you really think Black Americans are not smart enough to know who supports programs designed and in practice (not theory) are working (without being diluted, refocus, or terminated too soon)? We're pretty astute at times, Sean.

Incidentally, I am only half-heartedly engaging this section of the thread, because it really is beyond the scope of the article. I can't help thinking 'the plug' will be pulled out without notice.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.62  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.52    one month ago
The US has spent 50 plus years and billions of dollars to help black people and remove that excess poverty rate. 

Some conservatives have "helped" handicapped programs, just like they are HANDICAPPING unfettered voting with the stroke of pens (upcoming) in state capitals. The federal government 'giveth' to the people and (red) states "f-k" it up with devastatingly watered down and deliberate impotent executions. We know this, Sean.

It happens all the time. Again, people of color are voting their butts off and all it takes is one White man and his confederates to institute policies to "F" it up. Some conservatives tried to kill the ACA that helps people of this country, but only succeeded in diluting it, fortunately. But the intent to 'kill' was real.

Let's get real. Some conservatives do not see minorities as a "good fit" for "their" country. They are not working for the benefit of the whole population. They just are not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.63  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.2.62    one month ago
Some conservatives have "helped" handicapped programs, just like they are HANDICAPPING unfettered voting with the stroke of pens (upcoming) in state capitals.

Utter nonsense.

You can't name one single thing in any new law that prohibits anyone from voting. You can't name anything in the new laws that is prejudicial to voters of any color or sex.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.64  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.57    one month ago
One thing that is exceedingly clear is some conservatives are standing in the way;

If they're so exceedingly clear, you should have no difficulty outlining several examples.  Do regale us.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.65  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.52    one month ago
And your theory is black people are incapable of doing anything on their own and can only succeed if paternalistic white men give them things. 

I have never said any such thing . You and Jack Tx in particular like to try and explain what other people mean. 

A subset of inner city, black, culture is 'oppositional' to the mainstream culture. This is the group that resists assimilation. 

Of all the ethnic groups that were that were out of the mainstream in the late 19th and early 20th century immigration fueled American society (Jews, Irish, Italian, Slav, etc) only African Americans have kept a subset of their group that never assimilated. (You could add Native Americans as unassimilated although there are different circumstances with NA related to tribal sovereignty) Why? 

There is a hundreds of years long history of African Americans being rejected and abused by the "mainstream" society of America. Does it really surprise anyone that there remains an oppositional element in black culture? 

To this minute there are white supremacists who insist America is and should continue to be a white country.  I believe that if this was all gone we would see a change of attitudes among oppositional blacks within a generation. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.66  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.65    one month ago

You mean they like to put words in other peoples' mouths and make up shit as they go along . . . . 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.67  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.55    one month ago

See Congress. What do you think is a good 'offer,' Texan? And yes, I fully expect you to waste time sputtering.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.68  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.58    one month ago

Spend more time familiarizing yourself with past history and current events. I have no interest in time-consuming reprobate minds.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.69  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.59    one month ago

Rhetorical answer. No need to answer:

Some conservatives lie on their tax returns in order to not pay taxes that will aid the 'libs.'  And they call that 'smart.'

Trump Brags About Not Paying Taxes: "That Makes Me Smart"

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2.70  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.65    one month ago
g . You and Jack Tx in particular like to try and explain what other people mean. 

You literally did that to me in the post I replied to. 

Why? 

I think you answered it here.  "A subset of inner city, black, culture is 'oppositional' to the mainstream culture"  They've adopted a culture that makes financial success almost impossible and teaching kids from the get go that the system is rigged against them, they are victims who can't succeed in America will only makes things a thousands times worse. Teaching kids they are victims from birth and that they can't succeed because of their skin color is about the worst form of abuse possible. 

 

oes it really surprise anyone that there remains an oppositional element in black culture?

The results are clear. It's a poisonous culture and enabling it is a grave disservice. 

his minute there are white supremacists who insist America is and should continue to be a white country

America isn't a white country, those who claim it are on the fringes and the actual people who run this country's government, the economy and culture have by and large adopted extremist views in the other direction and racial relations have gotten worse. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.71  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.63    one month ago

IMPASSE.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.72  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.64    one month ago

Do your own research. Moreover, I view this willful ignorance as a ploy. If you have no understanding of the political environment that we are operating in, then maybe you should leave and return when caught up. I am not wasting myself supplying information to reprobates.Obfuscate that!

With that, I am moving on.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.73  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.72    one month ago
Do your own research.

So there aren't any.  OK.

Moreover, I view this willful ignorance as a ploy.

Asking you to back up your outlandish assertions with an example or a fact or some piece of data is definitely a ploy to either engage in an intelligent discussion or expose a wild and unfounded accusation.  Looks like it's the latter.

If you have no understanding of the political environment that we are operating in, then maybe you should leave and return when caught up. I am not wasting myself supplying information to reprobates.Obfuscate that!

You don't need my help to obfuscate anything.  You're quite expert at it.

With that, I am moving on.

I doubt it, but if you say so, OK.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.74  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.37    one month ago

Well Jack, "modern day redlining" is being discussed by AG Merrick Garland on television right now. There are several cases of red-lining being worked presently, and several settlements of Black and Hispanic red-lining. AG Merrick Garland says more cases are forthcoming.

Jack_Tx. . . you were saying??

(C-Span link to video on AG Garland deals with modern red-lining: )

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.75  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.73    one month ago

Do you own research. Oh and see 'current events' @5.2.74 - Jack_Tx.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.76  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.51    one month ago
Generally speaking , "welfare" eligibility is entirely based on income. If more blacks per capita receive "welfare" it is because more blacks per capita are poor. 

Yes.  We need to emphasize that "more blacks per capita are poor" has not changed.  Ever.  Civil Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, Affirmative Action....none of it has moved the needle.

How many black kids have a direct path into a trades union job when they turn 18 or 19.  I have multiple members in my white extended family who wanted to join a trades union when they finished high school, and because of "connections" through the family or through the neighborhood they were able to do so.  How many black teenagers have that pathway?  My guess would be damn few. 

Your guess would also be damn accurate.

My question to left-leaning folks would be:  At what point will you be willing to hold the American educational system...including classroom teachers.... accountable?  At what point are you willing to force them to change behaviors?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.77  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @5.2.74    one month ago
Well Jack, "modern day redlining" is being discussed by AG Merrick Garland on television right now. There are several cases of red-lining being worked presently, and several settlements of Black and Hispanic red-lining occurring. AG Merrick Garland says more cases are forthcoming. Jack_Tx. . . you were saying??

I was saying "give us an example".  

Turns out it wasn't so difficult, was it?  Maybe you could just lead with that next time.

I do hope we're getting ready to shift this conversation from shit that happened 50 years ago that we can't do anything about to shit that's happening today that we CAN do something about.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.2.78  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.8    one month ago

Right on the money! And my ethnic background is far too convoluted to go into here. Suffice it to say that my genealogist that once studied my family tree looked me in the face and said, "Ed, the only way I can truly describe your ethnic background in your family tree is with the word mutt!" I cracked up then and laugh about it to this day.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.79  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.77    one month ago
I do hope we're getting ready to shift this conversation from shit that happened 50 years ago that we can't do anything about to shit that's happening today that we CAN do something about.  

You can hope anything your heart desires. We will discuss history and life in hopes to make the future better. That you 'want' to shunt some "shit" off to the recesses is your problem: not histories, not Blacks, minorities, or "Others.'

History not recognized is history doomed to be repeated! You don't get to select the relevant facts to suit your 'fancy,' because facts are facts. Comfortable or uncomfortable, you dig?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.80  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.2.67    one month ago
See Congress. What do you think is a good 'offer,' Texan?

So Congress does your thinking for you? I asked you, not Congress.

I think a good offer is nothing. Not a person in America has been enslaved by me. Slavery ended quite some time ago.

And yes, I fully expect you to waste time sputtering.

And I expected a better argument from you.

I see we are both disappointed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.81  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.2.68    one month ago
Spend more time familiarizing yourself with past history and current events.

I know history. Spend more time in formulating your arguments.

I have no interest in time-consuming reprobate minds.

Yes, that is obvious because too much of your time is wasted on petty, childish insults.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.82  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.2.69    one month ago
Rhetorical answer. No need to answer:

No, there has never been a need to answer what isn't a question. Probably why they call it a "rhetorical question". something you didn't ask.

Tax cheats come in all colors and political persuasions.

If you have evidence that Trump actually cheated on his taxes (assuming you aren't just parroting what you have been told to say), I suggest that you let Biden's IRS know along with the Justice Dept. 

They may even give you a reward or something!!!

However, if this is like usual, don't alert the authorities because they usually don't take kindly to people filing false reports.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.83  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.82    one month ago

I am going to let you have 'all of that' because it is worthless to me and my time today! Bye.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.84  Texan1211  replied to  CB @5.2.83    one month ago
I am going to let you have 'all of that' because it is worthless to me and my time today! Bye.

No sense in acting magnanimous with me, you "gave" me nothing.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.2.85  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.19    one month ago

John, you regularly keep talking about "white guilt". The one thing you or anyone else here has not stated is what constitutes being "white"? Is it anyone who is 1/4 caucasian, 1/2, 3/4, or what? If you decide to answer this, think very carefully before doing so.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.86  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.2.85    one month ago
John, you regularly keep talking about "white guilt". The one thing you or anyone else here has not stated is what constitutes being "white"? Is it anyone who is 1/4 caucasian, 1/2, 3/4, or what? If you decide to answer this, think very carefully before doing so.

Reparations for everyone!! Don't the very vast majority of people have mixed races in them?

How about if someone "identifies" as black?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.2.87  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.86    one month ago

"How about if someone "identifies" as black?"

You mean like Democrat Rachel Dolezal? Former NAACP chapter president in Spokane, WA.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.2.88  Jack_TX  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.2.85    one month ago
John, you regularly keep talking about "white guilt". The one thing you or anyone else here has not stated is what constitutes being "white"? Is it anyone who is 1/4 caucasian, 1/2, 3/4, or what? If you decide to answer this, think very carefully before doing so.

I'm talking about people who see themselves as white, regardless of actual ancestry.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
5.3  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @5    one month ago

800

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.3.1  CB   replied to  MrFrost @5.3    one month ago

It's all in the Trump doctrine, under: "Make me." At the same time these some conservatives want to shout: "It ain't me!"

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @5.3    one month ago

It's amazing how aggressive progressive  ignorance is about this law. 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  MrFrost @5.3    one month ago

Of course.

This woman doesnt want her grandchildren or great-grandchildren to see what she was up to back in the day

800

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.3.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @5.3    one month ago

Funny. I was taught about that when I was in school a long time ago. There are a lot of things not taught now that were taught when I was young. Cursive writing ring a bell?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3.4    one month ago
Funny. I was taught about that when I was in school a long time ago.

As was I but I don't remember being prohibited from discussing Jim Crow laws or Brown v. Board of Education or the motivation of the white woman in that photo or the actions of the state that caused the need for the Little Rock Nine to be escorted by the National Guard.

I judge it to be impossible to discuss those events without recognizing and voicing their racial motivation and their effects. 

'To Kill a Mockingbird' is always ranked at the top of polls for 'Great American Reads' but it is being removed from the curriculum all over the country because of this bullshit. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.3.7  CB   replied to  Dulay @5.3.5    one month ago

And it can be put back in the curriculum after these "obstructionists" in the 21st century are themselves moved out of positions of power. That is the task ahead. Talk to proper republicans and conservatives and leave some conservatives 'rocks' to float off into the sunset horizons.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
5.3.8  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.3.4    one month ago

Funny. I was taught about that when I was in school a long time ago. There are a lot of things not taught now that were taught when I was young. Cursive writing ring a bell?

CRT and cursive writing....not really the same thing, Jim. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @5.3.8    one month ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.3.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @5.3.8    one month ago

I said, in case you missed it, I was taught about that stuff above when I was in school. Point was, which I guess you did miss it, that a lot of things aren't taught in school any more as they are evidently deemed unimportant. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
5.3.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @5.3    one month ago

that's quite a condundrum for Democrats ins't it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.3.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.3.5    one month ago
ut I don't remember being prohibited from discussing Jim Crow laws or Brown v. Board of Education or the motivation of the white woman in that photo or the actions of the state that caused the need for the Little Rock Nine to be escorted by the National Guard.

The fact that after months of enlightenment, all too many still post bullshit, like your comment, that has NOTHING to do with the law in question..

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.3.13  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3.12    one month ago

Well gee Sean, since my comment was in direct reply to a comment by Jim.

I can't help but wonder why you didn't whine to HIM that HIS comment had NOTHING to do with the law.  

Oh wait, I get it. Trolling...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.3.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.3.13    one month ago

Lol.. You claimed something prevents you from discussing Jim Crow laws. If it not's the law, [deleted]

My bad to assume you were talking about the law, in a post about the law, in a thread about the law. [deleted]

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.3.15  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3.14    one month ago
Lol.. You claimed something prevents you from discussing Jim Crow laws.

This is the comment I posted: 

As was I but I don't remember being prohibited from discussing Jim Crow laws

YOU actually block quoted the full comment Sean so it's isn't credible for you to claim that you didn't READ it. 

Yet here you are, insisting that I said JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Posting lies about what I said diminishes your credibility.  

But hey Sean, you be you. 

If it not's the law, is it a wizard who put a hex on you? 

Jim's comment was about his educational experience as was my reply. It had NOTHING to do with the content of the law Sean. AGAIN, Jim's comment set the predicate for mine. THAT'S how this shit works. 

My bad to assume you were talking about the law, in a post about the law, in a thread about the law. My bad for assuming you were paying attention to context or logic in your war against imaginary strawman.

No Sean, it's clear from your comment that you aren't 'assuming' but instead you are intentionally FABRICATING. 

I hear if you hop on one foot for an hour, the wizard allows you to discuss Jim Crow laws at sunrise. Try it out. 

I KNOW that when a member READS another member's comment for comprehension that there is a far less likelihood of making fallacious allegations about it's content.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6  Trout Giggles    one month ago
"HB 1775 is a direct affront to the constitutional rights of teachers and students across Oklahoma by restricting conversations around race and gender at all levels of education," said Megan Lambert, the legal director of the ACLU of Oklahoma.

YES!!! That's it exactly! It keeps students from discussing race/gender/religion and getting their opinions/feelings out in the open. The only way we can defeat "isms" is by discussing it rationally and openly

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    one month ago
keeps students from discussing race/gender/religion and getting their opinions/feelings out in the open. T

Of course it doesn't. Read the law.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    one month ago

I have. 

I particularly like the part about revoking the licenses of teachers that teach something 'unconsciously'. /s

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @6.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
6.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @6.1.1    one month ago
I particularly like the part about revoking the licenses of teachers that teach something 'unconsciously'.

Cite?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.4    one month ago

Did you miss the sarcasm tag Jack? 

BTW, the law is cited in full in the comments in this seed. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.6  CB   replied to  Dulay @6.1.5    one month ago

@12.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
6.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @6.1.5    one month ago
Did you miss the sarcasm tag Jack? 

Sorta, yeah. 

I wasn't sure which part you were being sarcastic about, (there is a lot of worthy material) and there has been a shitload of misrepresentation about what's actually in this law throughout the entire seed, so I wasn't sure where you were going with that.  

I think I've got it now.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.2  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    one month ago

The law is bullshit. The way the right goes on and on about some theory, I am beginning to think they just use it as a catch all to everything they don't like.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ender @6.2    one month ago

The law prevents parents having to go to their school boards and debating it there It also shields parents from being labeled domestic terrorists by let’s go bran dons AG whose son in law profits from selling CRT materials to school districts.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Ender  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.1    one month ago

So in your words, a law designed to get parents out of school board meetings.

And that is somehow better?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Ender @6.2.2    one month ago

The irony is that the law mandates that the school board 'promulgate rules to
implement the provisions'. 

Opps.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.1    one month ago
"AG whose son in law profits from selling CRT materials to school districts."

That's not true no matter how many times you repeat the lie.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
7  Sunshine    one month ago

After school groups can be formed for any CRT discussions with students.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @7    one month ago

But it's not being taught in public schools K-12, so there's that.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
7.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    one month ago
But it's not being taught in public schools K-12, so there's that.  

Well good.  It shouldn't be, and new laws are aimed at preventing it in the future..

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @7.1.1    one month ago

Completely unnecessary because it would never be taught in public schools K-12.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
7.1.3  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.2    one month ago

Well I would rather trust the law than your word.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @7.1.3    one month ago

Completely unnecessary to create a law for something that isn't happening.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
7.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sunshine @7.1.1    one month ago

Exactly and they, if not already, are sure leaning that way. Otherwise, why would it come up in any discussion. Our Lieutenant Governor is hell bent on getting it out of the schools it IS in now, which some say isn't happening.........errantly I may add, and preventing it in the future. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
7.1.6  Sunshine  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.5    one month ago
Exactly and they, if not already, are sure leaning that way.

Definitely, best to prevent it now before causing harm to a child. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
7.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.4    one month ago

We have thousands of laws on the books "for something that isn't happening". The laws being there are usually a big reason that it isn't happening now.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.5    one month ago
Exactly and they, if not already, are sure leaning that way.

Who is leaning that way?  Specifically...

Otherwise, why would it come up in any discussion.

It's the latest republican dog whistle.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.7    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.8    one month ago
It's the latest republican dog whistle.

So funny!

Strangely enough, only certain posters come a-running when they hear these imagined "whistles"!!

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
7.1.11  Duck Hawk  replied to  Sunshine @7.1.1    one month ago

Why do we need new laws for a problem that doesn't exist? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Duck Hawk @7.1.11    one month ago

jest coz!!!!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.10    one month ago
Strangely enough, only certain posters come a-running when they hear these imagined "whistles"!!

Completely ignored my question huh.  Okay.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.13    one month ago
Completely ignored my question

Not at all, sir!!

I gave it every consideration I felt it warranted.

BTW, I didn't comment on your question. I commented on your declaration, please get it straight next time.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.14    one month ago

BTW, I didn't comment on your question. 

Which is exactly why I pointed out that you'd ignored the question.  You like to keep repeating the obvious, don't you?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.16  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.2    one month ago

Let’s go Brandon’s AG disagrees.  His son sells that curriculum to school districts.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.17  XXJefferson51  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.5    one month ago

I really like your Lt. Governor! A great person in my opinion. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.18  XXJefferson51  replied to  Duck Hawk @7.1.11    one month ago

To make sure the problem never does exist!  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.15    one month ago
Which is exactly why I pointed out that you'd ignored the question.  You like to keep repeating the obvious, don't you?

I have already explained this to you.

Do you need to read it again?

Here--I gave your question every consideration I felt it warranted.

That's twice now I have posted it, but let me know if I need to repeat it again for you.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
7.1.21  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Duck Hawk @7.1.11    one month ago

If the problem doesn't exist, it matters not. And if it doesn't exist and there are no plans for it to exist, WHY THE FUCKING LAW SUIT?

Think man...........................someone(s) knows what's coming........in both cases.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.16    one month ago
"His son sells that curriculum to school districts." 

NO, HE DOESN'T.

Who is Brandon?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.22    one month ago
Who is Brandon?

Google it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.24  CB   replied to  Tessylo @7.1.22    one month ago

"Let's Go Brandon" is a bull-patty phrase used to cover its real intent: "Fuck Joe Biden!"

It originated in a routine interview of three youths at a NASCAR show where during the interview some conservatives in the stands were yelling, "Fuck Joe Biden" (which was picked up by the mics) and near the tail-end of curt interview, occurring at the same time, one of the boys yelled, "Let's Go Brandon!" to awkwardly cap off the segment.

Yes, it's stupid. But some conservatives like. . . that kind of patty.

 
 
 
Moose Knuckle
Freshman Participates
7.1.25  Moose Knuckle  replied to  CB @7.1.24    one month ago

It's really not cool because I have a friend named Brandon and every 5 minutes at Walmart they page him, "Let's go Brandon" I think they tell customer service they need to page their kid named "Lesco Brandon". He has gone to customer service so many times he can't go shopping anymore.

That is an abuse of paging systems. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  CB @7.1.24    one month ago

I knew what it was - it's so fucking lame - which is all they got - lame fucking bullshit.  

 
 
 
Moose Knuckle
Freshman Participates
7.1.27  Moose Knuckle  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.26    one month ago

It's better though than when people would call places and have Myra Mains paged all the time. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Moose Knuckle @7.1.27    one month ago

Or Mike Hunt

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.29  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sunshine @7.1.3    one month ago

Me too!  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.30  XXJefferson51  replied to  CB @7.1.24    one month ago

Actually it was the nbc reporter interviewing the winner Brandon ??? who upon hearing the chants said on air it was “let’s go Brandon” instead of f—k Joe Biden and it took off from there as a shot at both Biden and the msm covering for him.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.31  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.30    one month ago

Yada.  (Details, really?!) original

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
7.1.32  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Moose Knuckle @7.1.27    one month ago

Or when you go to a lab and they page I.P. Freely. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8  Tessylo    one month ago

243723512_10225158875232819_6054690302579791901_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_rgb565=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=VJp9To4t_Y0AX957ljK&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=6d5c399f82e814fdfbbe41ad99ed911d&oe=61946AB2

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
8.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @8    one month ago

The Democrats were in charge back then.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1    one month ago

removed

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
8.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1    one month ago

Gotta love people on Twitter who use an alias so as not to be identified and vilified for their ignorance LOL

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
8.2  Duck Hawk  replied to  Tessylo @8    one month ago

Well said!! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Duck Hawk @8.2    one month ago

It's really something to see you guys flip flop from claiming "it's not taught" to justifying that it's taught. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.1    one month ago

'through the lens of critical race theory'

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.2    one month ago

And that's what people are talking about when they use the term CRT.  Do you get it yet? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @8    one month ago

Why would anyone have a problem with that being taught. It's the true history. They ought to teach how WWII vets came home and the white GIs got VA loans to buy homes but the black GIs didn't

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.3    one month ago

I just saw this. It is critical race theory to teach that blacks were excluded in many cases from the full extent of GI benefits? 

That is a good one , lol. 

It is true that some blacks were given home loans through the GI bill but they were not given loans for homes of their choice. They were given loans based on racial segregation for the lesser desired properties. 

The same with education.  The GI bill paid for college but what is the total worth of that when you couldnt get into "white" schools? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @8.3.1    one month ago

There are many, millions, of white people in this country who have no intention of admitting all that racism entailed. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.3.1    one month ago
It is critical race theory to teach that blacks were excluded in many cases from the full extent of GI benefits?

Where did you read that at?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.3.2    one month ago
There are many, millions, of white people in this country who have no intention of admitting all that racism entailed. 

There are also many millions of people who have no intention of feeling any "white guilt" over things which happened before they were born and which they had absolutely no responsibility for.

Some people who admit to racism in the past just aren't as vocal as you  about it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.3.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @8.3.3    one month ago

www.snopes.com   /fact-check/black-world-war-ii-vets-gi-bill/

Were Black World War II Veterans Excluded from GI Bill Benefits?

6-7 minutes


The GI Bill of Rights for returning World War II veterans in 1944 was   heralded   at the time as a significant piece of legislation that helped propel millions of servicemen into the middle class. The bill—which was   promoted   as race neutral—provided veterans with unemployment insurance, tuition assistance, job placement, and guaranteed loans for home ownership, farms, and businesses.

And the bill did that—just not for most of the roughly   1.2 million   Black men who enlisted in the war. On paper they all could have received access to education and home ownership, but they had to contend with racism ingrained into systems around the country, not just in the southern states.

A   New York Times   report described how the civil rights group the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) encouraged more Black men to sign up for the military because of the transformative possibilities the benefits could offer to them. But discrimination found its way into the bill’s implementation, partly because states were responsible for distributing the benefits.

Rep. John Rankin, an   openly racist   Mississippi Democrat, was among those who drafted the bill. He had   previously criticized   a proposal that the American Red Cross abandon the practice of labelling blood to indicate whether it came from Black or white donors, calling it a conspiracy to “mongrelize the nation.” Rankin ensured that states were responsible for distributing benefits.

The disparity in implementation of the GI Bill   increased   the gaps in wealth and education between Black and white Americans.

A 1998 report, “ First a Negro… Incidentally a Veteran ” published by Oxford University Press, looked at what happened to Black veterans in the Deep South, when they tried to obtain their entitlements from 1944 through 1948. The report found that former Black servicemen in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi could not get the promised unemployment compensation, educational opportunities, housing and job loans needed to improve their socioeconomic conditions because of discrimination and poor implementation. Southern Black veterans “had to return home to the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder.”

And this was not limited to the South. According to the book, “ The GI Bill: The New Deal for Veterans ,” Black veterans from the South could not benefit from the historically white educational institutions, and were limited to studying at underfunded, overcrowded, and small historically Black colleges. Journalist and historian Edward Humes   wrote   in his article, “How the G.I. Bill Shunted Blacks Into Vocational Training,” that tens of thousands of Black veterans were also turned away from historically Black colleges because of limited capacity.

Theoretically , Black veterans in northern states could use their education vouchers to go to colleges, but few actually did. In the late 1940s, annual enrollment of Black students in colleges did not exceed 5,000. These veterans were overwhelmingly channeled into vocational training programs, manual training, and agriculture programs, instead of liberal arts.

A   small number   of Black veterans did manage to get what they were promised. Humes wrote about how 12 percent of Black veterans did go to college on the GI Bill, compared with 28 percent of white veterans. But out of that 12 percent, 90 percent went to the underfunded historically Black colleges.

The   New York Times   report detailed how Black veterans were routinely denied mortgages, alongside Black people in general. Across the country, Black home ownership remained extremely low. In 1947, Ebony magazine surveyed 13 Mississippi cities and discovered that of the 3,229 Veterans Affairs (VA) home loans given to veterans, only two went to Black veterans.

In an interview with   NPR , Richard Rothstein, the author of the book “The Color Of Law: A Forgotten History Of How Our Government Segregated America,” described in more detail how entrenched racism in other government agencies affected Black people:

The Veterans Administration, established under the GI Bill, adopted all of the [Federal Housing Administration’s] racial exclusion programs. […] Big developments like Levittown or south of San Francisco, Daly City, or many other large subdivisions like that that were built after World War II were financed by the Veterans Administration, not necessarily the Federal Housing Administration, with the same racial restrictions. In the book, I talk of one family of a returning war veteran who – a very ambitious man. He formed a trucking company, hired a number of people for his trucking company. He was a successful businessman. He got a contract – an African-American. He got a contract from Levitt when he was building Levittown to deliver sheet rock to Levittown. But he and his family members were prohibited from buying homes in Levittown because of the FHA requirement. So the Veterans Administration, which did provide benefits in the area of education to African-Americans – but when it came to housing, they were not permitted to move into areas that the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans Administration had designated for whites.

Furthermore, white job counselors at local employment offices across the country   refused   to refer Black veterans for skilled or semi-skilled jobs, even though many of them came back from the war as fully trained mechanics, welders, electricians, and more.

Given that an overwhelming majority of Black veterans who fought in World War II were not able to benefit from the GI Bill of Rights, and were excluded from accessing it through a combination of racism, exclusionary federal and state law, and poor implementation, we rate this claim as “Mostly True.”

Were Black World War II Veterans Excluded from GI Bill Benefits? | Snopes.com

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.3.6  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @8.3.5    one month ago

And they, some conservatives, are at it yet again. These are dirty, underhanded, folks! And their deeds are 'legion' against the people of this country. If there is a God: Give them miserably due, Lord!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.3.5    one month ago

Uh, where did you read that "It is critical race theory to teach that blacks were excluded in many cases from the full extent of GI benefits?"??????????

No sense, really, in posting hundreds of words that don't answer what was asked.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @8.3.1    one month ago

John Oliver did a segment on this - unreal, it's still going on to this day - where blacks are excluded from buying homes in 'certain areas' - it's still on the 'books'.

It's all true John yet you still have some denying it outright - and asking 'where did you read that at'?

Truth/reality has a liberal bias.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.3.8    one month ago
Truth/reality has a liberal bias.  

Said no one truthfully---ever.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @8.3.8    one month ago

Not worth a penny

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.3.10    one month ago
Not worth a penny

So you are actually saying that your post 8.3.8 is not worth a penny.

Well, I have to admit, when you're right, you're right!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.3.12  CB   replied to  Tessylo @8.3.8    one month ago

Give us the segment please. I would love to see it. John, though British, has his finger on the American way of bullpatty-ing itself!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  CB @8.3.12    one month ago

I believe this is it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.3.14  CB   replied to  Tessylo @8.3.13    one month ago

Watching and its breaking my heart! I didn't know the half of this! And it's notable that a British-American is laying it out straight and plain: no chaser!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.3.15  CB   replied to  CB @8.3.14    one month ago

John Oliver: Drop the mic (moment)! I encourage everybody to watch this video from start to finish. Make the time!

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
8.4  Freewill  replied to  Tessylo @8    one month ago

They were not excluded from the bill per se, but they were denied many of it's benefits when they tried to use them, which was indeed a travesty.

History Channel story on that HERE

While the GI Bill’s language did not specifically exclude African-American veterans from its benefits, it was structured in a way that ultimately shut doors for the  1.2 million Black veterans  who had bravely served their country during World War II, in segregated ranks.
When lawmakers began drafting the GI Bill in 1944, some Southern Democrats feared that returning Black veterans would use public sympathy for veterans to advocate against  Jim Crow laws . To make sure the GI Bill largely benefited white people, the southern Democrats drew on tactics they had previously used to  ensure  that the  New Deal  helped as few Black people as possible.

That is the sad and unfortunate history through the lens of truth, no CRT required.  Teaching this would not be in violation of AB 1775.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    one month ago

I doubt if red state school boards or pta groups can be trusted to handle this issue appropriately.  The state of Texas created a board or commission to whitewash the racist history of that state through something called the 1836 commission begun to promote the "values" of the founders of Texas. 

The founders of Texas were mainly racists and slaveowners, and the constitution of the Republic of Texas banned free blacks and Indians from living in that "nation". 

I wouldnt trust there will be honesty about race from their schools. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
9.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    one month ago

i guess you are not capable of staying on topic

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
9.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
9.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    one month ago

You are the one that brought up PTA and school boards. I simply proved that blue states school boards are just as moronic when it comes to policies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.1    one month ago

And when did he/she tell you that?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
9.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1.3    one month ago

removed for context

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.7  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.2    one month ago

He is.  Red states and county school systems don’t need any supervision or outside group to manage how we educate our kids.  Kendi has no place in the education of children.  MLK Jr. on the other hand clearly does.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.7    one month ago

I have a feeling that if MLK had to choose between critical race theory and you he would choose critical race theory every time. 

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
9.2  Duck Hawk  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one month ago

Their original constitution says it all. Texas was founded by a bunch of rich racist pigs. If Americans hadn't come to their aid (see Pres. Polk and the Mexican-American War) they would still be part of Mexico.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Duck Hawk @9.2    one month ago

Texas has moved on. I suggest you do the same.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to    one month ago

It has not only not moved on but it  did a 180 and is heading for 1836 at warp speed

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.4  Texan1211  replied to    one month ago

No, progressive liberals can't seem to move on.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.2.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  Duck Hawk @9.2    one month ago

That is just so wrong on so many levels. Texas won its independence in 1836 and became a nation.  There is no evidence that Texas would have fallen back into Mexico.  Texas wanted more than independence to be a part of the USA.  Polk made that happen.  Polk and Jefferson are my two favorite democrat Presidents.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.2.5    one month ago

XX, was the Republic Of Texas a racist nation? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.6    one month ago
It is critical race theory to teach that blacks were excluded in many cases from the full extent of GI benefits?

Besides you, who the hell cares about that crap over 150 fucking years later?

Wil it change anything?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
9.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.1    one month ago
I doubt if red state school boards or pta groups can be trusted to handle this issue appropriately.

Now you're asking for miracles.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.7    one month ago
It is critical race theory to teach that blacks were excluded in many cases from the full extent of GI benefits?
Besides you, who the hell cares about that crap over 150 fucking years later?

The GI Bill after ww2 was not 150 years ago. These were our parents and grandparents. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.9    one month ago

Still living in the past, are you?

Welcome to 2021.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.10    one month ago

The next time you actually construct an argument to support one of your "points" will be the first time. I'm not sure NT needs so much filler. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.11    one month ago

And the first time you comprehend one of my posts will be a fucking miracle.

Hallelujah!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
10  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago

We're being told over and over again that CRT isn't being taught.  If that's the case then why go to court over a ban on something that isn't being taught?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
10.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10    one month ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif       jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
10.2  Ronin2  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10    one month ago

Because the left continuously has to manufacture rage over something. Like not being able to teach CRT to children.

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
11  Duck Hawk    one month ago

It could be that SOME of us feel that level of censorship is wrong. To intentionally lie and deceive our children is in my view a crime. When we cover up our past we present an unrealistic view of our country to our children. I would rather have my children proud of themselves and their country while acknowledging that it is not perfect and does indeed have some warts. I raised my children to believe in the Constitution with all the freedoms AND responsibilities that go with it. WE understand that America is not perfect and never has been. 

"We the people in order to form a more perfect union...." This implies that we are not a perfect nation but work towards improving our nation for "ourselves and our posterity..." We need to be able to see ourselves as we are not some imaginary image from a past that never was. 

WILL SOMEONE TELL ME WHEN AMERICA WAS GREAT? What do you mean by make America great again? What are you want tin to go back to? Jim Crow, slavery, indentured servitude which is it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  Duck Hawk @11    one month ago

No one I know wants to return to the Democratic glory days of slavery and Jim Crow. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1    one month ago

Not at all.  I’ve got an article up about that very topic today.  They can’t shake off their roots and history.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.2  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.1    one month ago

Just keep talking bull patty. We're bringing 'tons' of yellow gear!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @11.1.2    one month ago
We're bringing 'tons' of yellow gear!

Probably necessary for progressive liberals who like to piss into the wind.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
11.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Duck Hawk @11    one month ago

Have you read the law?

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
11.2.1  Duck Hawk  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2    one month ago

why yes I have. jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif Have you? And do you understand that what I wrote is exactly what the law is trying to suppress.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
11.2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Duck Hawk @11.2.1    one month ago
why yes I have. Have you? 

I have.

To what clause or clauses do you object, specifically?

And do you understand that what I wrote is exactly what the law is trying to suppress.

I understand that you think that, but I don't think that's what the law says.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB     one month ago
An Act
ENROLLED HOUSE

BILL NO. 1775 By: West (Kevin) , Stearman,
Stark, Caldwell (Chad),
Crosswhite Hader, Williams,
Olsen, West (Rick), Gann,
Bashore, Kendrix, Smith,
Grego, Pfeiffer, Martinez,
Roe, Sneed, Marti,
Steagall, Russ and Conley
of the House


and


Bullard, Hamilton, Jett
Standridge, Dahm, Weaver,
Bergstrom, Merrick,
Pederson, Rogers, Burns and
Stephens of the Senate






An Act relating to education; prohibiting certain
students within certain institutions from being
required to engage in certain tr aining or counseling;
allowing for voluntary counseling; prohibiting
orientation or requirement that presents any form of
certain stereotyping or bias; directing promulgation
of rules pursuant to certain act and subject to
certain approval; prohibiting cer tain application;
prohibiting employees of certain schools from
requiring certain concepts to be part of a course;
specifying concepts; directing promulgation of rules
pursuant to certain act and subject to certain
approval; providing for codification; pro viding an
effective date; and declaring an emergency.




SUBJECT: Education


BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:  
ENR. H. B. NO. 1775 Page 2
SECTION 1 . NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified
in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 24 - 157 of Title 70, unless there
is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:


A. 1. No enrolled student of an institution of higher
education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education shall
be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual
diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling
shall not be prohibited. Any orientation or requirement that
presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis
of race or sex shall be prohibited.


2. P ursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures
Act, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education shall
promulgate rules, subject to approval by the Legislature, to
implement the provisions of this subsection.


B. The provisions of this subs ection shall not prohibit the
teaching of concepts that align to the Oklahoma Academic Standards.


1. No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school
district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or
make part of a course the fol lowing concepts:


a. one race or sex is inherently superior to another race
or sex,


b. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is
inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether
consciously or unconsciously,


c. an individual should be discri minated against or
receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of
his or her race or sex,


d. members of one race or sex cannot and should not
attempt to treat others without respect to race or
sex,


e. an individual’s moral character is necessarily
determined by his or her race or sex,


f. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
bears responsibility for actions committed in the past
by other members of the same race or sex, 

g. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish
or any other form of psychological distress on account
of his or her race or sex, or


h. meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are
racist or sexist or were created by members of a
particular race to oppress members of another race.


2. The State Board of Education shall promulgate rules, subject
to approval by the Legislature, to implement the provisions of this
subsection.


SECTION 2 . This act shall become effective July 1, 2021.


SECTION 3 . It being immediately neces sary for the preservation
of the public peace, health or safety, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and
be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1  CB   replied to  CB @12    one month ago

Ain't that rich. Now some conservatives want to be a model of good race-relations! Of course, they could not 'counsel' that old 'snake' in Kentucky, Mitch McConnell to support better 'race-relations' vis-a-vis voting rights in congress! That would have been too much like speaking up for right and wholesome!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
12.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  CB @12.1    one month ago

Did you notice the AG of that state who will be appointed to the senate when Mc Connell retires?  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.2  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @12.1.1    one month ago

I did not. And so what? The impression I get is old Mitch literally plans to have them bring his polished skeleton out from the capitol!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.1    one month ago
they could not 'counsel' that old 'snake' in Kentucky, Mitch McConnell to support better 'race-relations' vis-a-vis voting rights in congress

Perhaps because he recognizes that people already have voting rights in America, and won't fall for all the Chicken Little bullshit some progressive liberals like to fling about.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.4  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.3    one month ago

"Not falling for a banana in your tail-pipe, eh?" Perhaps? Perhaps? Perrrrhapppss, Kentucky is home of betta race-relations too? Mitch is 'pale-shelter' and 'frigid-hands.'

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.1.5  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @12.1.1    one month ago

He'll have to move to Kentucky FIRST Xx. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.1.4    one month ago

Not falling for progressive liberal Chicken Little bullshit.

Was that really unclear to you after reading my post stating exactly that???

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.6    one month ago

IMPASSE.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
12.1.8  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @12.1.5    one month ago

The AG of Kentucky doesn’t live in Kentucky? Really?  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.1.9  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @12.1.8    one month ago

Oh so by 'that state' you meant Kentucky rather than Arkansas, which is the topic of the seed.

Mitch stepping down would be a reason for celebration, no matter who replaces him. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @12    one month ago

Which part do you object to?

Do you want to teach kids that that character is determined by their race? That kids are guilty for the crimes of their ancestors? That a kids should feel guilt because of their race? Or do you think it's okay for teachers to advocate that members of certain races should be discriminated against?  What, specifically, causes you such outrage? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to    one month ago
t us simply teach the history.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that goal. But what in this law prevents that from happening? 

Do teachers need to teach that students' race determine their character? Or teach kids that they should feel guilty because of their race? Is that necessary to teach history? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
12.2.3  Ronin2  replied to    one month ago

I agree with you, with the caveat that the past is the past and needs to remain such.

No trying to transfer the crimes of those in the past to those in the present that had nothing to do with them. No one is inherently racist, period.

I swear the government should issue real race cards denoting the full lineage and DNA testing of the holder. Mine would need to be the size of a tablet since I am such an American mutt. I would also like mine to be razor sharp around all the edges so that every time the race card is played it will cut the offenders hands to shreds. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.4  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @12.2    one month ago

Off-base questions. My point is where was all this 'support' for other races "a thousand years" ago. Now, "suddenly" Oklahoma is interested in making the case, for equality and equity? How come? And dare I say, demanding others join them either to or against their interests.

Well, Sean, we will do what is in our best interests similarly to some conservatives. We will evaluate the 'situation' and delve into what is behind the push for equality when it sprang up unsolicited.

I am not outraged as you state: I am observant.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @12.2.4    one month ago
Off-base questions.

Asking what actual provision of the law that is the subject of this seed  you object to is off base? 

So I'll put you down as a supporter of the law than. 

There's a lot of hysteria over this law, yet no one can point to an actual provision that causes it. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.6  CB   replied to    one month ago

Let me call it what it is. Some conservatives are basically saying they can't defend their ancestors, so they are attempting to legislate them out of the historical record. That way, once forgotten (or swept away), they think, mind you think, they can get on with the business of resetting a new round of conservative policies not beholden to how generational wealth was accomplished for many historical White families and all that it entails (at the expense of minorities).

All while creating a new beginning of the same old attitudes that cause this country's shameful past.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.2.5    one month ago

Most don't know what is in the law and are merely parroting what they have heard on tv.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @12.2.6    one month ago
so they are attempting to legislate them out of the historical record

That's 100% false. You are just making things up and projecting them onto the law regardless of reality at this point. 

But by all means, read the text of the law and point to the actual  provision that "legislates" conservatives' ancestors out of the record.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  CB @12.2.6    one month ago

You posted the law above.

What specifically in it do you object to, and why?

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
12.2.10  Ronin2  replied to  CB @12.2.4    one month ago
My point is where was all this 'support' for other races "a thousand years" ago.

Were any of us alive a thousand years ago? Unless you believe in reincarnation, we had no control over what was done then.

Now, "suddenly" Oklahoma is interested in making thecase, for equality and equity?

Why not now? Has to start somewhere doesn't it? 

 How come?And dare I say, demanding others join them either to or against their interests.

They learned well from watching the Democrats and left. It is either get on board or get run over. Find it rather humorous that the racist card is now being played against the left. Can't find anything to object to in the bill that calls for complete equality; but still bitching over it, and taking it to court no less.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.2    one month ago
What, specifically, causes you such outrage?

The fact that after months of enlightenment, all too many still post bullshit, like your comment, that has NOTHING to do with CRT. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @12.2.11    one month ago

Ah, yes. Now we are that part where you just  throw words together, ignore context, reality and the English language  and make unsupported declarations to attack strawmen. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.13  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @12.2.5    one month ago

Whatever floats your boat. Still, going to resolve all matters and issues accordingly, nevertheless. And if that means Oklahoma's "preemptive" law needs repealing or tossed out so be it. Oklahoma will have its true story told voluntarily or through force-feeding! Get ready, Oklahomans!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
12.2.14  Jack_TX  replied to    one month ago
Let us simply teach the history. An entire race was subjugated to a horrific fate…the consequences of which are being felt to this moment.

I don't think you'd find much disagreement on this.

acknowledge the ramifications in creating  subjective policy, educationally, judicially and politically going forward. 

This part is gonna be the problem. 

Whether it's CRT or the 1619 Project or whatever the nonsense du jour happens to be currently, the long-term goal of these guilty white liberals and a number of black activists is reparations.  They want to pretend that's not what they're talking about, all the while they slowly try to weasel their way through a complicated series of rationalizations like some teenage boy trying to make a case for why his curfew should be 4 am.  They're transparent as hell, and telling them that also makes them angry.

But that shit just isn't going to fly.  No matter how emotional these people are or how angry it makes them, most of us are just not ever going to accept responsibility for shit that happened decades or centuries before we were born.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.15  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @12.2.5    one month ago

@12.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.16  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @12.2.8    one month ago

Stop already. You're insulting our intelligence.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.2.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @12.2.16    one month ago
Stop already. You're insulting our intelligence.

 I'm doing my best to get you to make a rational argument about this law. I see I've failed. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.18  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.9    one month ago

IMPASSE.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.19  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @12.2.10    one month ago

Ronin, what a snooze, do I really have to indicate that "a thousand years ago" is a figure of speech? Really, you commented against that phrase without getting its usage from the context?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.20  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @12.2.10    one month ago

I could care less what you find "humourous" Ronin2. Pay for what was done in the past and not attempt to rhetorically blow smoke up. . . us.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.21  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @12.2.17    one month ago

The law per se is not problematic, unless practical considerations can be found to exist that causes problems. My concern is this: Why NOW is Oklahoma keen to resolve bias and prejudice (remains to be judged if they will be successful) by just 'moving on.' And its laughable, that some conservatives think they can just summarily declare "the matter is closed."

They can not pile all the wealth of that state and this nation on conservative or white majority sides of the 'ledger' and then declare we want equality for all! It does not work that way, Sean.

equality-equity-reality-17189800.png

A tad dramatic (or is it)? But worthy of honest reflection.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.2.12    one month ago

Actually, it looks like the part where your comments turn into utter argle-bargle that merely throw insults together while pretending to make a point. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.2.23  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.14    one month ago
Whether it's CRT or the 1619 Project or whatever the nonsense du jour happens to be currently, the long-term goal of these guilty white liberals and a number of black activists is reparations. 

Please post a link that supports you claim that CRT's goal of reparations. I'll wait...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
12.2.24  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @12.2.23    one month ago
Please post a link that supports you claim that CRT's goal of reparations.

I never said it was.  Read carefully.

I'll wait...

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.2.25  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.24    one month ago
I never said it was.  Read carefully.

I DID read your comment carefully Jack and you did make that claim. Perhaps you should re-read your comment carefully. 

Here, I'll clarify for you:

Whether it's CRT...or whatever... the long-term goal...is reparations. 

Of course I AM presuming that the ' guilty white liberals and a number of black activists' you cite are proponents of CRT 'or whatever' but it sure as fuck isn't a stretch. 

No you won't.  You're doing that thing where you pretend you're making a point with some horseshit demand for documentation that you wouldn't accept anyway.

In a few days you'll make some ridiculous comment about "crickets", because you're either too inept or too lazy to add anything of your own to the discussion.

If somebody provides actual proof that you're full of shit, you'll change the subject and try to convince yourself you're clever.

Seen it too many times.

That's a load of bullshit allegations Jack.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt about your demand for a link re my sarcastic comment. I see that it was undeserving. You reverted all too quickly to form. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
12.2.26  XXJefferson51  replied to  CB @12.2.21    one month ago

Or they could pay and sit in the stands to watch the game instead of trying to free load from outside the stands.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
12.2.27  Ronin2  replied to  CB @12.2.20    one month ago
Pay for what was done in the past 

Now we get down to it you want payment. Well hell, count me in! Will need that full race card I was mentioning earlier. I have Native American blood, Japanese blood, African American blood (might be just African as depending on when one of my ancestors decided to extend the family lineage), and Latino (meaning Mexican) blood in me. All that encased in a blue eyed, blond haired, European shell that has German, Dutch, English, and French in it. Several parts of my lineage have been hurt by racism and abuse; so where is the damn money at?

Can I also claim abuse against my German side? In Minnesota I was bullied by Nords- you would think that all blonde haired blue eyed people of European decent would be one big happy family; but no. Did you know that there is such a thing as a German nose? I got to learn to spot the differences really well. Seems the Germanic tribes were a bunch of assholes (Germany as country- even bigger assholes) in the past; not that I had anything to do with either. Being bullied because of your race is grounds for reparation right? Then when my father stupidly moved us to Detroit for several months I was bullied by African Americans for the audacity of being white and living in their neighborhood; like I had any damn choice! Racism is racism after all. A hate crime is a hate crime.

Of course with that race card some very nasty surprises are going to come out for a lot of people. Some of those White Supremacists are going to find out they aren't nearly as white as they like to think they are. Of course some reparation money should sooth their newfound pain (might be both emotional and physical if their brethren hold to their purist beliefs). Of course the same will apply to the other side. Wonder how many "pure bloods" there really are in the US?  

So let me know when I will be getting paid!

and not attempt to rhetorically blow smoke up. . . us.

Be careful with that "us" comment. Never know who you who you are conversing with. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.28  CB   replied to  XXJefferson51 @12.2.26    one month ago

Yeah, that just happened everybody. State of the discussion.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.29  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @12.2.27    one month ago

What the ???? Do you really think to diminish this 'issue' with stupid anecdotes? This is why I gaff off some comment! Complete and utter nonsense. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your 'mix' - classifications don't pour over minuscule proportionalities and unless you want to end up 'mental'—stay focus up 'here'!

I should not have to address this kind of patty. (Some things should not have to be said or written down to be considered and possibly stricken out by mods!)

As to the "us" in this case it was a reference to NT liberals. Nobody is interested in your 'breeding' per se.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
12.2.30  Ronin2  replied to  CB @12.2.29    one month ago

I didn't diminish anything. This is your statement "Pay for what was done in the past".

Why do you deserve payment over me? Better still why should anyone have to pay for anything that was done when they weren't even born yet! 

As to the "us" in this case it was a reference to NTliberals. Nobody is interested in your 'breeding' per se.

Two problems there. NT liberals still haven't stated what is wrong with the law. So how about pointing out the direct sections of the law you are against; instead of the general leftist BS we always get? 

As for my "breeding"- that sounds very racist to me. My lineage may not be the greatest; but I am still proud of it- warts and all. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.2.31  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @12.2.30    one month ago
NT liberals still haven't stated what is wrong with the law.

Actually, I did, yesterday. 

Care to refute my critique? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
12.2.32  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @12.2.25    one month ago

Now you've stooped to intentionally misquoting people.  Niiiice.  It would be sad if it weren't predictable.  

My actual statement:

the long-term goal of these guilty white liberals and a number of black activists is reparations.

These people will use whatever batshit rationalization they can to try to weasel their way into either assuaging their guilt or enriching themselves using other people's money.  It doesn't matter if CRT or anything else calls for reparations or not, they're going to use it to claim their position is justified.

That's a load of bullshit allegations Jack.

Which you've just proven true.  Again.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.33  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @12.2.30    one month ago

Whatever. Talk to you later when and if it may matter.  Yeah, do love yourself, best believe I love myself too!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.34  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @12.2.30    one month ago

Yes, the country should pay- and it that involves you - so be it. I am done with this argument for argument sake. I am not amused with being dazzled by bull-patty overlong exchanges. We should come here to encourage or at least 'grow' each other through communication. If you simply want to insult and be abrasive (for its own sake), I am not interested.

As to your heritage, what matters is how you are classified and that weighs heavily on appearances, don't you know. Clearly, I am considered a Black American from my outward features alone! I don't need a lecture on human classifications today, Ronin2.

Oh, and reparations, if they come about won't have a damn thing to do with 'bullying' - it would be more along the lines of resolving terrorism in America by the White Majority against People of Color for past transgressions.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.2.35  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.32    one month ago
Now you've stooped to intentionally misquoting people.

I didn't misquote you Jack. I diagramed your sentence. 

It doesn't matter if CRT or anything else calls for reparations or not, they're going to use it to claim their position is justified.

Great. Then prove that 'guilty white liberals and a number of black activists' are using CRT or the 1619 project to justify reparations. 

Oh and it would be great if you show HOW they are using it if it doesn't call for reparations. 

Which you've just proven true.  Again.

You see what you want Jack. 

Carry on. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.36  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.32    one month ago
other people's money.

So it's "other people money" and getting to a point: it's some conservatives' money, you really mean to say. Amazing how 'middle of the road' you don't write, for a moderate. Even liberatarian-sounding.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
12.2.37  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @12.2.35    one month ago
I didn't misquote you Jack. I diagramed your sentence. 

Riiiight.  Because sentence diagrams normally change the fundamental information of the sentence. *eyeroll*

So basically you misread the first post, tried to rewrite it in the second hoping you could get away with it and nobody would notice, and now you're even more pathetically trying to pretend your lie wasn't really a lie.  Apparently you think sticking with this series of lies is less embarrassing than just admitting you misread the first post.  Good luck with that.

Oh and it would be great if you show HOW they are using it if it doesn't call for reparations. 

Why? So you can intentionally misquote that, too?   

John and CB have demonstrated what you claim you're looking for at least a dozen times on this very seed.  Misrepresent their shit for a while.

Out of curiosity, do you ever intend to add an original thought to a seed?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
12.2.38  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @12.2.36    one month ago
So it's "other people money"

Well it sure as hell isn't going to be theirs.  White liberals in general have a long, well-documented history of demanding that other people pay for things they want.

The point here being that they never seem to care enough about any of these issues to change their lives in any substantive way.  It's other people who should change.

and getting to a point: it's some conservatives' money, you really mean to say.

I tend to say what I mean.  You tend to assume I don't, which is mildly puzzing.  But you have yet to infer anything accurately.....

Amazing how 'middle of the road' you don't write, for a moderate. Even liberatarian-sounding.

... and you have missed again.   

A libertarian would make the case that government should dramatically reduce its role in every area of American life, and racial equality programs would be very high up on the list of things that need to go.  

I have already stated several times that I believe government action should be taken to improve economic opportunities (specifically the earning power) for black Americans.  We need to do things like overhauling our public education system, combined with aggressive adult vocational training, financial instruction, business management education, and much more.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.2.39  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.38    one month ago
Well it sure as hell isn't going to be theirs.  White liberals in general have a long, well-documented history of demanding that other people pay for things they want.

I , and a lot of other people, dont want to pay a trillion dollars a year to make defense contractors rich. Where do we go to get that stopped?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
12.2.40  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @12.2.39    one month ago
I , and a lot of other people, dont want to pay a trillion dollars a year to make defense contractors rich. Where do we go to get that stopped?

Let me know if you find out, I'll go with you.  

Especially when most of that spending is directed toward 20th-century thinking.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.41  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @12.2.38    one month ago

Well, you know what Jack_Tx we all have our (private) 'wish-lists.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2.42  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @12.2.39    one month ago

HA!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.2.43  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @12.2.39    one month ago
Where do we go to get that stopped?

Your representatives in Congress.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet