City of L.A now forcing Farmer's Market vendors to accept EBT

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

I would point out that I am not the one who injected the GI Bill into this discussion. My initial response was to this comment, which is factually incorrect:

"In the 1940s, the GI bill was past [sic]. Military vets got free healthcare, COLLEGE paid for by the MILITARY, and cheap loans/mortgages for businesses, houses, or farms. As these people moved up socioeconomically, they moved their families up as well. It was mainly for white people and did not extend to other races until the 1960s (civil rights era).

African American veterans were less able to take advantage of the GI Bill than white veterans, and the obstacles they faced were indeed formidable, especially in the South under Jim Crow, but many African American veterans did use their GI Bill benefits. They were more successful getting education benefits than mortgages (due to redlining primarily). The bill was not "mainly for white people" and it was not just for college; it could be used to learn a trade, too, which is what my own father used it for. Both white and African American men used it for both options, with African Americans somewhat more often choosing trades. It was also not paid for out of the military budget. The VA is separate.

The GI Bill did indeed predate the Civil Rights movement, but many of the African American veterans who were able to use their benefits became driving forces in Civil Rights just a few years later. It would have been wonderful if the Bill had made provision for the education and mortgage benefits to have been race blind. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that efforts to do that, in that era, might have resulted in failure of the bill to pass at all.

Ii's puzzling to me how my comment that small vendors might choose to take their produce to markets where they can continue to accept cash and not have to deal with EBT has been construed as a negative attitude toward persons forced to rely on social welfare.

I do not understand your reference to apples and oranges and I have done nothing "specious". I merely presented info on a study that showed that educational opportunities for African Americans under the GI Bill were less available in the South. Those born in other states faced less difficulty using their GI Bill education benefits. The details are in the study if you choose to read it.

Your summary above is fair and balanced. So fine.

Just to clarify as far as my responses to you go, I didn't at any point accuse you of taking a negative attitude toward persons on welfare. I took issue with your repetitive focus on a misleading comparison that persons who DO negatively mythologize welfare would find [falsely] supportive of their prejudice.
But, no, I didn't find you trying to sell whitewash for that purpose.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Your summary above is fair and balanced. So fine.

Just to clarify as far as my responses to you go, I didn't at any point accuse you of taking a negative attitude toward persons on welfare. I took issue with your repetitive focus on a misleading comparison that persons who DO negatively mythologize welfare would find [falsely] supportive of their prejudice.
But, no, I didn't find you trying to sell whitewash for that purpose.

Thank you.

I still do not understand what you find misleading.