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.
It’s been gone since 1865, at the price of a half-million lives. But that doesn’t stop some people from continuing to wallow in it and sow hatred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
And those same people are still pissed off that during the cavemen days there was no women's rights or EPA regulations.
Those people forget that since the caveman days many forms of servitude, including slavery, existed and were accepted, across all human civilizations of the world. The colonists in North America did not invent slavery, they inherited it from every civilization which touched Europe and the British Isles.
It should be celebrated that the US was one of the first nations to abolish slavery.
Equal rights (women did not have either) didn't happen until another 100 years had passed after the civil war. Yet, the only topic still debated in this area ad nauseum in "America" (no other country does this) is the slavery of a 3000 year old biblical institution social economic custom that came to a close in 1865.
On the religious side of this the people 150 years ago, had to go against that which was God ordained (government in reality) written in the Bible as law. There are consequences as so it was believed if one goes up against God.
The people do not want to talk about the custom of men beating the crap of their women and children during that era. That doesn't make the headlines or the child labor (moral) laws that were (Biblical ordained) not existent. Nope ... not even a made mention into those 'social' customs.
The government that developed after 1865 made slaves of us all, yet people believe that the taking of their money is necessary in order for a government to fund itself, even though the government funded itself (through the sale of u.s. bonds, etc) before 1913 just fine.
It was a political war in which people across the u.s. were caught in the middle of two governments, one which was seeking its independence as they (the states) realized after the American Revolution, they were free, but they were not 'independent' with their right to sovereignty, recognized and respected.
People don't want to talk about (how words and actions) they disrespect all people even though it may not be their intention, they do so none-the-less ...
"“We currently live under a psychological form of reconstruction,” Hervey continued. “Whites are made to feel guilty for sins of their ancestors, and blacks are made to feel downtrodden. This keeps all of us from communicating. The political correctness of today is killing the pride of the people.”"
This is not a contest, this is a hope that people today will get a 'real' understanding, of that which is effecting their lives, that has absolutely nothing to do with (a rebel battle flag) the Southern Cross.
There were four different colors used. Green, Blue, Yellow, and Red.
Green were basically the rich suburbs, which were mostly new houses which would likely appreciate in value, and were thus safe to insure. Blue were houses a little older but still in good condition and worth insuring. Yellow were areas that were "declining", but may still be worth investing in. And Red were areas that were considered too risky.
Many/most black neighborhoods were seen as bad investments then, just as they are to this day. And for the exact same reasons. Almost no one wants to live there. And it wasn't only black neighborhoods that got redlined.
The purpose of the New Deal, was to promote economic-growth through government investment, by using the Keynesian economic theory of the "multiplier-effect". Government-protected loans weren't a "welfare policy", they were intended to basically create a "housing-bubble", just as the "community reinvestment act" also intended to do.
There was no noble or even racist component to the creation of the FHA, it was purely economic. The government was pursuing its "National Interests". And those interests were bound up in creating high-value housing which would pay for itself by growing the economy.
Throwing government money as "the projects" was considered a complete waste of money, and it is.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,601,582 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20
That's laughable, with the amount of highways, statues, buildings, streets, parks, and schools in the South name after confederate soldiers you would have to be a hermit to live life without being offended.
Here's an idea, if you aren't a snowflake then it won't be offensive. The government has already said they are not going to take down the Alamaba State monument and countless other monuments.
You don't get to erase history because it's history you don't like, liberals are aligning themselves on the same side as Holocaust deniers.
I'm sure you'd be offended if someone honored a group that set out to hurt or demean your dignity. Hint: the Confederacy did fight to keep slavery. It's in the secession documents of Mississippi and Texas, to name just two states. It's in Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech. It's in the editorial of a Savannah newspaper.
As for snowflakes, your bigotry against sensitive people is duly noted. All that disparagement of "sensitive" people boils down to is "Our social rules are perfectly fine the way they are, and therefore don't need to change to accommodate *those* people". That or you're confusing utopias being impossible with an excuse to handwave away grievances against "the way society does things". Either way, it reflects poorly on your empathetic abilities.
"Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes. But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth. Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes. So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.
African-American families that were prohibited from buying homes in the suburbs in the 1940s and '50s and even into the '60s, by the Federal Housing Administration, gained none of the equity appreciation that whites gained. So ... the Daly City development south of San Francisco or Levittown or any of the others in between across the country, those homes in the late 1940s and 1950s sold for about twice national median income. They were affordable to working-class families with an FHA or VA mortgage. African-Americans were equally able to afford those homes as whites but were prohibited from buying them. Today those homes sell for $300,000 [or] $400,000 at the minimum, six, eight times national median income. ..."
A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America
'Redlining' was & is unconstitutional, not that you care.
Redlining targeted poor people, crime, and low-quality housing, not black people.
And furthermore, segregation wasn't even "unconstitutional" in 1933. It wasn't until the 1950's that activist judges on the Supreme Court began ruling that it was.
No one in 1787, when they drafted the Constitution, thought segregation was unconstitutional. And no one in 1868, when they ratified the 14th amendment, believed segregation was unconstitutional. Which is precisely why Jim-Crow existed for a hundred years.
So please, stop your ranting. Redlining was the result of black neighborhoods being places no one wants to live, just as they still are.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,601,582 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Redlining targeted poor people, crime, and low-quality housing, not black people.
And furthermore, segregation wasn't even "unconstitutional" in 1933. It wasn't until the 1950's that activist judges on the Supreme Court began ruling that it was.
No one in 1787, when they drafted the Constitution, thought segregation was unconstitutional. And no one in 1868, when they ratified the 14th amendment, believed segregation was unconstitutional. Which is precisely why Jim-Crow existed for a hundred years.
So please, stop your ranting. Redlining was the result of black neighborhoods being places no one wants to live, just as they still are.
Segregation was always unjust, even if it wasn't ruled unconstitutional, regardless of what the Justices believed. That's why the SCOTUS struck down Plessey with the Brown ruling. You see the same thing with the courts striking down large parts of DOMA, violated the equal protection clause.
Besides, show me a case of redlining of poor white neighborhoods.
While I applaud your thread I also suspected this would turn into...perhaps something you did not intend...or maybe you did, I couldn't say for sure. But at least it's a way to address what as become a bone of contention on both sides.
I intended to have an intelligence discussion. Some individuals came to derail the thread.
Quote:
But back to the title of the thread, Confederate Flag/Why Many Don't View It As Southern Heritage
Southern is my heritage and I have to somewhat agree with your mother's statement, "I'm southern but it's not my pride".
I suspect this is how many people feel, especially African-Americans.
Quote:
My parents are from the south and my relatives are still in the south excluding first cousins who are now in California and Washington DC. My ancestors who came here from Europe in the 1700's were poor and illiterate immigrants who came to the eastern seaboard and made their way to the southern states through Virginia seeking a better life in America. They fought with their conscience in every American war from the very beginning, all this to say they are not gun totin', robe wearing southerners who wave Conferate flags.
I am, however proud of my people and what THEY stood for and what they continue to stand for.
My mother is from the South. My father is from the North. My father is a product of the Great Migration. He was born and raised in the Midwest. His parents came from the South. They left the South to seek opportunities elsewhere, and to escape from Jim Crow.
Your family history is interesting. What part of Europe did your ancestors come from?
I tend to agree with you however not so sure I do here. I don't view this thread as a 'dumpster fire' ~ some folks are just attempting to honestly express themselves.
They don't appear to mind being called out on their so-called logic:
I had enough of trying to speak logic to those truly bent on spouting their own illogical fallacies. I did see people Express themselves. It involved expressing themselves in petulant ways, often for the sake of it, or to derail this thread.
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.
