U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland > Baltimore
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-15-2015, 11:02 PM
 
537 posts, read 651,155 times
Reputation: 719

Advertisements

Historian Says Don't 'Sanitize' How Our Government Created Ghettos : NPR

"It was not the unintended effect of benign policies. It was an explicit, racially purposeful policy that was pursued at all levels of government, and that's the reason we have these ghettos today and we are reaping the fruits of those policies."

"In Baltimore in 1910, a black Yale law school graduate purchased a home in a previously all-white neighborhood. The Baltimore city government reacted by adopting a residential segregation ordinance, restricting African Americans to designated blocks. Explaining the policy, Baltimore’s mayor proclaimed, “Blacks should be quarantined in isolated slums in order to reduce the incidence of civil disturbance, to prevent the spread of communicable disease into the nearby White neighborhoods, and to protect property values among the White majority.”"
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2015, 12:30 PM
 
5,289 posts, read 6,109,347 times
Reputation: 1135
Thanks for posting! I came across this piece a few days ago, but haven't had the chance to listen or digest it yet.



Quote:
Originally Posted by lanhvtnymd View Post
Historian Says Don't 'Sanitize' How Our Government Created Ghettos : NPR

"It was not the unintended effect of benign policies. It was an explicit, racially purposeful policy that was pursued at all levels of government, and that's the reason we have these ghettos today and we are reaping the fruits of those policies."

"In Baltimore in 1910, a black Yale law school graduate purchased a home in a previously all-white neighborhood. The Baltimore city government reacted by adopting a residential segregation ordinance, restricting African Americans to designated blocks. Explaining the policy, Baltimore’s mayor proclaimed, “Blacks should be quarantined in isolated slums in order to reduce the incidence of civil disturbance, to prevent the spread of communicable disease into the nearby White neighborhoods, and to protect property values among the White majority.”"
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 01:11 PM
 
Location: God's Country
5,185 posts, read 4,078,354 times
Reputation: 8689
Problem is we sweep under the rug the government's contribution to today's conditions, beginning with LBJ's Great Society that opened the door to destruction of the black family unit (25% OOW in 1963 vis-a-vis 75% today) while encouraging the victim mentality. Just the other day, Mooch, an affirmative action princess who wasn't around during Jim Crow, spoke at college graduation ceremonies, whining and carving-out yet another acre of victim status for herself. Shameful.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 01:31 PM
 
5,289 posts, read 6,109,347 times
Reputation: 1135
Wasn't the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1964 part of The Great Society agenda?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvert Hall '62 View Post
Problem is we sweep under the rug the government's contribution to today's conditions, beginning with LBJ's Great Society that opened the door to destruction of the black family unit (25% OOW in 1963 vis-a-vis 75% today) while encouraging the victim mentality. Just the other day, Mooch, an affirmative action princess who wasn't around during Jim Crow, spoke at college graduation ceremonies, whining and carving-out yet another acre of victim status for herself. Shameful.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 02:30 PM
 
Location: God's Country
5,185 posts, read 4,078,354 times
Reputation: 8689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77 View Post
Wasn't the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1964 part of The Great Society agenda?
1964 Civil Rights Act

1965 Voting Rights Act

Righteous.

Unfortunately, there was also e.g., Uncle Lyndon telling baby mommas not to chase down their sperm donors because the govt. would support them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 03:06 PM
 
3,327 posts, read 3,102,865 times
Reputation: 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77 View Post
Wasn't the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1964 part of The Great Society agenda?


Technically it was not, although democrats will lump it together to take credit. First, it is known as the Civil Rights Act, not the Civil Rights Voting Act, as voting was only one of many provisions. The Civil Rights Act was proposed by President Eisenhower, a REPUBLICAN, in 1957. Unfortunately, thanks to the democrats, the republicans could not get it passed then, but the republicans were finally able to get it passed in 1964. It just so happens that a democrat occupied the White House at the time it was passed, so the democrats will take credit, even though it was the republicans who wanted it passed. 80% of republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, while less than 70% of democrats did. JFK, that president that blacks worship, voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act in 1957 when he was a senator, as did Al Gore, Sr., the father of VP Al Gore, another white politician that blacks worship. As if that wasn't bad enough, Al Gore, Sr. not only voted against the Civil Rights Act again in 1964, but he also led a 72 hour filibuster against it, trying desperately to keep the bill from passing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 07:56 PM
 
537 posts, read 651,155 times
Reputation: 719
So let me get this straight:

The blacks worship Al Gore, the son of someone who is now dead and voted against their interests.
The blacks worship JFK, someone who is now dead and voted against their interests when given the first opportunity.

What's your point? Because if I'm following you, the blacks should not "worship" whites that once voted against their interests or who are the offspring of those who voted against their interests...

And give me a break. Everyone who has taken US History knows that the parties were in turmoil at that time BECAUSE OF the Civil Rights Act. The southern democrats pre-1964 by and large did not want the Civil Rights Act to pass, and when it did, the south was lost to the Democratic party indefinitely. Strom Thurmond was a member of the Democratic party that voted for the Civil Rights Act, and then left when it passed. Why? Because he was a segregationist, and he knew his beliefs were more welcome in the "new" Republican party. And people voted the way they did then the same way they vote now: for all sorts of bizarro and/or political reasons.

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | The Guardian

If the Democrats became segregationists tomorrow, trust and believe "the blacks" would probably not vote Democrat again.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2015, 08:05 PM
 
Location: God's Country
5,185 posts, read 4,078,354 times
Reputation: 8689
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanhvtnymd View Post
If the Democrats became segregationists tomorrow, trust and believe "the blacks" would probably not vote Democrat again.
If the dems removed you from their entitlement plantation, how would you vote?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 05:30 PM
 
5,289 posts, read 6,109,347 times
Reputation: 1135
Then technically, someone needs to go back and and conduct some revisions within US history books. There is much to say that The Civil Rights Act 65'/Civil Right Voting Act 64' being a part of this GS agenda. Thanks for the historical correction!



Quote:
Originally Posted by james777 View Post
Technically it was not, although democrats will lump it together to take credit. First, it is known as the Civil Rights Act, not the Civil Rights Voting Act, as voting was only one of many provisions. The Civil Rights Act was proposed by President Eisenhower, a REPUBLICAN, in 1957. Unfortunately, thanks to the democrats, the republicans could not get it passed then, but the republicans were finally able to get it passed in 1964. It just so happens that a democrat occupied the White House at the time it was passed, so the democrats will take credit, even though it was the republicans who wanted it passed. 80% of republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, while less than 70% of democrats did. JFK, that president that blacks worship, voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act in 1957 when he was a senator, as did Al Gore, Sr., the father of VP Al Gore, another white politician that blacks worship. As if that wasn't bad enough, Al Gore, Sr. not only voted against the Civil Rights Act again in 1964, but he also led a 72 hour filibuster against it, trying desperately to keep the bill from passing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2015, 05:38 PM
 
5,289 posts, read 6,109,347 times
Reputation: 1135
The Guardian article is interesting.






Quote:
Originally Posted by lanhvtnymd View Post
So let me get this straight:

The blacks worship Al Gore, the son of someone who is now dead and voted against their interests.
The blacks worship JFK, someone who is now dead and voted against their interests when given the first opportunity.

What's your point? Because if I'm following you, the blacks should not "worship" whites that once voted against their interests or who are the offspring of those who voted against their interests...

And give me a break. Everyone who has taken US History knows that the parties were in turmoil at that time BECAUSE OF the Civil Rights Act. The southern democrats pre-1964 by and large did not want the Civil Rights Act to pass, and when it did, the south was lost to the Democratic party indefinitely. Strom Thurmond was a member of the Democratic party that voted for the Civil Rights Act, and then left when it passed. Why? Because he was a segregationist, and he knew his beliefs were more welcome in the "new" Republican party. And people voted the way they did then the same way they vote now: for all sorts of bizarro and/or political reasons.

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | The Guardian

If the Democrats became segregationists tomorrow, trust and believe "the blacks" would probably not vote Democrat again.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland > Baltimore
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top