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 does not need to be a check. Allow people to attend university or grad-school for free. Perhaps a certain amount of money to purchase a home, since so many people were terrorized out of their property. But then again, the estimates of the land stripped from AAs is in the BILLIONS.
This country is the land of opportunity today but it’s history is shameful, extremely shameful.
So, free college and $150k credit towards purchasing a home?
Anything else, or is this sufficient to make you feel no longer oppressed?
Every example of some "advantage" you think blacks are currently given, I can provide you with an example of current discrimination against blacks.
Blacks can't make up any ground or as much ground, from policies that favor blacks, if whites are still discriminating against blacks. One company uses AA and hires blacks....another company is throwing resumes with names that sound black into the trash. There is no net gain overall.
Its not an advantage I "think" they were given. I experienced it first hand. your denial just reinforces my point.
sigh the single parent rate for whites is 30%, it grew 22% Like I said, you stink at math.
Agreed. It has gone up for all races. But the worst ones are from single parent families.
Overall crime has gone down. The problem is that those from single parent families commit a much higher rate of crime. It doesn't matter which group that child is from, they are worse off if they are raised in a single parent family, that isn't debatable.
It went up 22% and again, it's about those who are in single parent families are much worse off. Nothing to do with which group went up by more. That was what YOU tried to make it about because YOU thought the white rate went up by more so you thought you had a point. Which you don't
Here's the point and I hope you actually try to get it. Children from single parent families are much worse off. They are less educated, they make less money, and commit a much, much higher rate of crime. All because,as a group, they were not trained well enough.
When you have the welfare state, humans will be more likely to abandon their children and not work, because government will kick in money. That's the demented thought process by too many of those who abandon their children and family. Who is affected more? The poor of course. Nothing to do with color of ones skin as far as why an individual does something.
Why don't you explain to everyone here why the single parent rate is going up for all groups? Please explain that. You won't even try. Instead you'll ignore that fact.
I said the white RATE went up 600%. I did not say the INCREASE went up 600%. If you have 5 dollars at one point and then have 30 dollars at another point. The amount of money you have has gone up 600%. The white rate used to be 5% then it went up to 30%. The RATE changed 600%. The rate is 6 times higher than it was.
Here is the point that you are missing. Say some entity theorizes that smoking weed causes lung cancer in humans, based upon the observation that a population of humans with high rates of lung cancer also have a high percentage of its population smoking weed. Say there is another group of humans who have dramatically increased their smoking of weed, THE PERCENTAGE INCREASES BY 22% (or the rate by 600%). Would one not expect to find lung cancer increasing in this population? It stands to reason that a dramatic rise in weed smoking in a population should increase lung cancer it weed smoking is causation and not just a correlation in the other human population. Since it did not increase, then it stands to reason that smoking weed, in and of itself, is not the CAUSATION of the high occurrence of lung cancer in the other population.
Children from single parent families are indeed much worse off.....but you assume that marriage means they will be better off. Educated people tend to marry at higher rates than uneducated people. Uneducated , high unemployed poor people tend to marry less. You erroneously interpret that to mean that MARRIAGE IS CREATING THE HIGHLY EDUCATED AND SUCCESSFUL CHILDREN as opposed to what is TRUE, which is that educated well paid people TEND TO MARRY.
Coupling two uneducated and unemployed people does not produce an income or an education that can help offspring. A single mother with a PHD and a good job is is good marriage material. Who will she be attracted to? Not some unemployed guy who is uneducated. Educated gainfully employed people are attracted to educated employed people, when it comes to marriage material. Marriage is not creating the successes and functionality.....its reflecting the choices of successful functional people, of which marriage is one. Hence, marriage cannot cure dysfunction in people. Two bad parents is worse than one bad parent. The long term effect of RACISM resulted in lot of individual dysfunctions in black people.....particularly among black males.
You must be reading what some of the pro reparations supporters are saying? Congratulations.
The congress only voted to do a study of the need and what it solution might look like. Nobody has suggested giving anybody green folding dollars.
No, I didn't read any of that. I came up with this idea on my own.
But thank you for not putting me down for it. The lead complainer on this thread gave me a real slap-down by saying "who am I? to think I have authority. I DO think that if blacks want whites to give away some of their money to them, they'd do better by not dismissing - with contempt - some viable ideas from whites by which it could be done somewhat fairly. Otherwise, it comes across as nothing more than a way of putting down whites at the same time they are asking quite of lot from them for NOTHING THEY THEMSELVES HAVE DONE.
Its not an advantage I "think" they were given. I experienced it first hand. your denial just reinforces my point.
I once worked next door to a woman who did the opposite of what that poster is saying - she actively SOUGHT OUT resumes with black-sounding names. In fact, she went so far as to inquire whether it would be legal to require applicants to put down their race so she would be sure not to inadvertently interview a white when she was searching for blacks. Quite a racist, that one. (Her father was active with the Black Panthers, so she grew up with a lot of white-hate around the dinner table.)
P.S. She was told it was illegal to require race disclosure on job applications, btw.
I once worked next door to a woman who did the opposite of what that poster is saying - she actively SOUGHT OUT resumes with black-sounding names. In fact, she went so far as to inquire whether it would be legal to require applicants to put down their race so she would be sure not to inadvertently interview a white when she was searching for blacks. Quite a racist, that one. (Her father was active with the Black Panthers, so she grew up with a lot of white-hate around the dinner table.)
P.S. She was told it was illegal to require race disclosure on job applications, btw.
The company I retired from when I left 10 years ago had developed a culture of fear that any kind of even feigned discrimination would lead to a lawsuit. Consequently, any Black employee who voiced a desire for promotion in the exempt positions would be almost certain to get that promotion over any White employees. Even in cases where the white was obviously more qualified. On an unreleated side note. One of the reasons I am Pro union is the fact that it cuts out a lot of discrimination by race. Its based on senority.
I don't know what it is you are TRYING to accomplish. If you are trying to say that the south is only responsible, because it is the area that had laws.....the country does not work like that. The COUNTRY allowed the south to have those laws. If the country had the power get those Jim Crow laws changed in the south......it had the power to prevent those laws from ever happening in the south. The COUNTRY offered harbor to states that were legally oppressing blacks.
I don't know if it's that you're blinded by your anger and hate, or don't realize which posters are trying to discuss solutions with you. Given your latest reaction to Rachel, you certainly make a case for the former.
here's what I said:
Quote:
who said I was against reparations as a solution? I sure didn't.
There are reasonably discernible facts that can lead to proposed solutions.
1. there were a certain number of black families freed in 1865. (even though Gen Sherman declaring "40 acres and a mule" wasn't government policy)
2. let's throw in the actual number of black families and land "lost" by some illegal means.
3. determine those families affected by Jim Crow laws
then there are opinions:
what do the affected black families agree that were it done, they'd accept it and we can rid ourselves of the stain?
I've changed it only by adding numbers to separate the thus-far potentially-identified groups that suffered from "legal" racism. There seem to be 3 groups:
1. Former slave families
2. some black families that DID own land but somehow that land was "stolen" from them (much more info is needed on this)
3. those who lived under Jim Crow laws and were harmed by them.
I'm sorry, but for example #3, if a black family left the South in the 1800's, settled in (say) Chicago, and Chicago didn't have Jim Crow laws, then that family didn't suffer from Jim Crow.
I see you do not believe people can have a change of heart. What about redemption, penance and forgiveness?
When did the south change from democrats to Republican? Wonder what precipitated the change?
They didn't change to around 2000.
You might want to brush up on history before getting it completely wrong.
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.
