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.
Blacks nationwide had difficulty using the GI Bill. This was not limited to the South. That is why you had the civil rights movement, as Blacks were routinely and legally denied access to education, loans, housing, and jobs.
As for starting more small businesses leading to upward mobility, in an era where large corporate giants crush small businesses I don't think so. Large institutions that provide excellent benefits including PENSIONS provide much greater social mobility than the typical small business.
Truthfully discrimination in education was not limited to Black people. Women were not routinely able to enter the Ivy League (with the exception of Cornell) until the 60s and 70s. Columbia College (part of Columbia University) did not admit women until 1983.
Blacks were systematically discriminated against because they could not find places to use their GI Bill benefits, not because the bill itself was discriminatory. It was not "mainly for white people" as you said earlier.
Apparently you did not read the previous link.
From the link:
"In 2012, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 5.73 million employer firms in the U.S. Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses, and businesses with less than 20 workers made up 89.6 percent. Add in the number of nonemployer businesses – there were 23.0 million in 2013 – then the share of U.S. businesses with less than 20 workers increases to 97.9 percent."
Small businesses make up the vast majority of firms in the Us and they are not being "crushed" by large corporate giants. They also provide benefits, including health insurance and pension plans. I get the impression that you do not have a very good understanding of what "small business" in the US really is.
Blacks were systematically discriminated against because they could not find places to use their GI Bill benefits, not because the bill itself was discriminatory. It was not "mainly for white people" as you said earlier.
Wth? If blacks couldn't use the GI Bill due to discrimination in the education marketplace, then the bill was, effectively, for white people, however it was written.
Wth? If blacks couldn't use the GI Bill due to discrimination in the education marketplace, then the bill was, effectively, for white people, however it was written.
"The unprecedented support for the education of returning World War II veterans provided by the G.I. Bill was notably race-neutral in its statutory terms. More than 1 million black men had served in the military during World War II and these men shared in eligibility for educational benefits, which included tuition payments and a stipend for up to four years of college or other training. Yet, the effects of military service and the availability of educational benefits may have differed by race and geography as black men from the South returned to segregated systems of higher education, with relatively limited opportunities at historically black institutions."
"For white men, the combination of World War II service and G. I. benefits had substantial positive effects on collegiate attainment, with a gain of about 0.3 years of college and an increase in college completion of about 5 percentage points. For black men, however, the results were decidedly different for those born in the southern states versus those born elsewhere. The combination of World War II service and the availability of G.I. benefits led to an increase in educational attainment of about 0.4 years of college for black men born outside the South, while there were few gains in collegiate attainment among black men from the South."
Black men in the North had greater college education gains than white men. Black men in the South were more limited by segregation and fewer institutions that would accept them.
"The unprecedented support for the education of returning World War II veterans provided by the G.I. Bill was notably race-neutral in its statutory terms. More than 1 million black men had served in the military during World War II and these men shared in eligibility for educational benefits, which included tuition payments and a stipend for up to four years of college or other training. Yet, the effects of military service and the availability of educational benefits may have differed by race and geography as black men from the South returned to segregated systems of higher education, with relatively limited opportunities at historically black institutions."
"For white men, the combination of World War II service and G. I. benefits had substantial positive effects on collegiate attainment, with a gain of about 0.3 years of college and an increase in college completion of about 5 percentage points. For black men, however, the results were decidedly different for those born in the southern states versus those born elsewhere. The combination of World War II service and the availability of G.I. benefits led to an increase in educational attainment of about 0.4 years of college for black men born outside the South, while there were few gains in collegiate attainment among black men from the South."
Black men in the North had greater college education gains than white men. Black men in the South were more limited by segregation and fewer institutions that would accept them.
The GI Bill itself was not the problem.
I read your link. You apparently can't grasp the point I made. However the Bill was written, its usefulness was limited by discrimination in the educational marketplace. Thus, the effect was that it worked for whites. Your own link confirms this. Though written color-neutral, not being accompanied by anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement, it was marginal at best for black Americans.
Blacks were systematically discriminated against because they could not find places to use their GI Bill benefits, not because the bill itself was discriminatory. It was not "mainly for white people" as you said earlier.
Apparently you did not read the previous link.
From the link:
"In 2012, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 5.73 million employer firms in the U.S. Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses, and businesses with less than 20 workers made up 89.6 percent. Add in the number of nonemployer businesses – there were 23.0 million in 2013 – then the share of U.S. businesses with less than 20 workers increases to 97.9 percent."
Small businesses make up the vast majority of firms in the Us and they are not being "crushed" by large corporate giants. They also provide benefits, including health insurance and pension plans. I get the impression that you do not have a very good understanding of what "small business" in the US really is.
The bill was discriminatory in that it did not ENFORCE open access for Black Americans. Since it didn't it was effectively written for white people.
Small businesses are being crushed by corporate giants, and if you despite this you are not dealing with reality and you need help that cannot be administered on this board.
The retail sector alone has small businesses being crushed by corporate giants. Only in areas where it's not economical for large companies to serve do small businesses do well.
"The unprecedented support for the education of returning World War II veterans provided by the G.I. Bill was notably race-neutral in its statutory terms. More than 1 million black men had served in the military during World War II and these men shared in eligibility for educational benefits, which included tuition payments and a stipend for up to four years of college or other training. Yet, the effects of military service and the availability of educational benefits may have differed by race and geography as black men from the South returned to segregated systems of higher education, with relatively limited opportunities at historically black institutions."
"For white men, the combination of World War II service and G. I. benefits had substantial positive effects on collegiate attainment, with a gain of about 0.3 years of college and an increase in college completion of about 5 percentage points. For black men, however, the results were decidedly different for those born in the southern states versus those born elsewhere. The combination of World War II service and the availability of G.I. benefits led to an increase in educational attainment of about 0.4 years of college for black men born outside the South, while there were few gains in collegiate attainment among black men from the South."
Black men in the North had greater college education gains than white men. Black men in the South were more limited by segregation and fewer institutions that would accept them.
The GI Bill itself was not the problem.
Black men in the North did not have greater college gains that white men. In NYC CUNY did not allow Blacks in any substantial numbers until the 1970s. The Ivy League and other private universities where out of the question, and most Northern state universities where out of the question.
BTW, this is my field and I don't need to read random links on the internet on it.
The GI Bill deliberately did not address racial issues and the federal government KNEW the implementation of it excluded Black Americans. So in the 1960s, after the civil rights laws were passed, organizations receiving federal funding where told they could not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, nationality, or religion. Only then did the GI Bill open up for Black Americans. And yes the fact the GI Bill did not address the discrimination that they KNEW was taken place at the time meant it was a HUGE part of the problem.
I read your link. You apparently can't grasp the point I made. However the Bill was written, its usefulness was limited by discrimination in the educational marketplace. Thus, the effect was that it worked for whites. Your own link confirms this. Though written color-neutral, not being accompanied by anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement, it was marginal at best for black Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
The bill was discriminatory in that it did not ENFORCE open access for Black Americans. Since it didn't it was effectively written for white people.
Small businesses are being crushed by corporate giants, and if you despite this you are not dealing with reality and you need help that cannot be administered on this board.
The retail sector alone has small businesses being crushed by corporate giants. Only in areas where it's not economical for large companies to serve do small businesses do well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
Black men in the North did not have greater college gains that white men. In NYC CUNY did not allow Blacks in any substantial numbers until the 1970s. The Ivy League and other private universities where out of the question, and most Northern state universities where out of the question.
BTW, this is my field and I don't need to read random links on the internet on it.
The GI Bill deliberately did not address racial issues and the federal government KNEW the implementation of it excluded Black Americans. So in the 1960s, after the civil rights laws were passed, organizations receiving federal funding where told they could not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, nationality, or religion. Only then did the GI Bill open up for Black Americans. And yes the fact the GI Bill did not address the discrimination that they KNEW was taken place at the time meant it was a HUGE part of the problem.
The implication that black men could not use GI Bill benefits because the Bill itself was discriminatory is false.
From the previous link:
""For white men, the combination of World War II service and G. I. benefits had substantial positive effects on collegiate attainment, with a gain of about 0.3 years of college and an increase in college completion of about 5 percentage points. For black men, however, the results were decidedly different for those born in the southern states versus those born elsewhere. The combination of World War II service and the availability of G.I. benefits led to an increase in educational attainment of about 0.4 years of college for black men born outside the South, while there were few gains in collegiate attainment among black men from the South."
White men had a gain of about 0.3 years of college and Black men in the North had a gain of about 0.4 years. That means that Black men in the North had a higher gain than white men overall.
Black men in the South did not benefit from the GI Bill because there were fewer educational institutions that would accept them. There was systemic discrimination, but it was not inherent in the Bill itself. If it had been, it would have affected black men in the North, too.
The implication that black men could not use GI Bill benefits because the Bill itself was discriminatory is false.
From the previous link:
""For white men, the combination of World War II service and G. I. benefits had substantial positive effects on collegiate attainment, with a gain of about 0.3 years of college and an increase in college completion of about 5 percentage points. For black men, however, the results were decidedly different for those born in the southern states versus those born elsewhere. The combination of World War II service and the availability of G.I. benefits led to an increase in educational attainment of about 0.4 years of college for black men born outside the South, while there were few gains in collegiate attainment among black men from the South."
White men had a gain of about 0.3 years of college and Black men in the North had a gain of about 0.4 years. That means that Black men in the North had a higher gain than white men overall.
Black men in the South did not benefit from the GI Bill because there were fewer educational institutions that would accept them. There was systemic discrimination, but it was not inherent in the Bill itself. If it had been, it would have affected black men in the North, too.
Yo suzy - no one is saying the Bill itself was discriminatory in the way it was written. It was discriminatory in practice. You can quote until your fingers fall off. Unaccompanied by anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement, the Bill served whites, not blacks.
Yo suzy - no one is saying the Bill itself was discriminatory in the way it was written. It was discriminatory in practice. You can quote until your fingers fall off. Unaccompanied by anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement, the Bill served whites, not blacks.
Yes, the Bill was not discriminatory. The institutions that refused to accept Black applicants did the discriminating. You can post until you are blue in the face, but if the Bill had been discriminatory in practice it would have affected Blacks all over the country. That did not happen. It was Blacks in the Jim Crow South who did not benefit.
The quote that you are refusing to read showed that Blacks in the North actually had slightly higher gains in education than whites did overall.
How the hell did this thread about food stamps at the Los Angeles farmers market turn into a discussion of the GI bill and discrimination against black veterans 60 years ago?
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.
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.
Wth? If blacks couldn't use the GI Bill due to discrimination in the education marketplace, then the bill was, effectively, for white people, however it was written.
