Ghettos De Jure: Historian Says Don't Sanitize How Our Government Created the Ghettos (Baltimore: 2015, credit)

[lanhvtnymd]

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.”"

[Infinite_heights77]

Thanks for posting! I came across this piece a few days ago, but haven't had the chance to listen or digest it yet.

Originally Posted by lanhvtnymd

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.”"

[Calvert Hall '62]

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.

[Infinite_heights77]

Wasn't the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1964 part of The Great Society agenda?

Originally Posted by Calvert Hall '62

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.

[Calvert Hall '62]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

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.

[james777]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

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.

[lanhvtnymd]

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.

[Calvert Hall '62]

Originally Posted by lanhvtnymd

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?

[Infinite_heights77]

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!

Originally Posted by james777

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.

[Infinite_heights77]

The Guardian article is interesting.

Originally Posted by lanhvtnymd

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.