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.
That's why I said "most" and not "all" earlier. Although, I had (passed on) and have Black friends here in SW Virginia that lived in the 50's and '60's and most all did just fine. Most were small business owners, others had good jobs, both earning them wealth, nice houses and many friendships.
Regardless of what your friends had, it can't be disputed that there is more freedom for Black people TODAY than in the 1950s and 60s. This still Virginia we're talking about. Jim Crow was still in force back in those days.
I am convinced that we will experience some kind of Great Reset, New World Order, or Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 and that no country, as such, will ever reign "supreme" again.
I foresee -- and I could be wrong, of course, and I hope I am -- that there will be an entirely new system 100 years from now with a greatly reduced population, with the top 0.0002% of those still alive being in charge (royalty), the bottom 95% being the slaves/serfs with varying degrees of skills/training/education; and with the remaining 4.9998% being very privileged due to extensive professional training (people like scientists, doctors, etc.) or being in very high administrative positions (the nobility).
I also think that this will not be a blatant change in the "order" of things, but will occur somewhat "naturally", with the serfs being pacified by being able to still earn promotions and more money, to continue to own land, to continue to shop, and maybe be able to continue to elect local officials, (maybe)-- but only on a very local level and these local officials will have no real power at all. I also think states, provinces and small countries will be combined to form regions -- something like the European Union, only more so -- and starting out as some kind of "continent unions" and then expanding from there so that, eventually, there will be no relatively small countries like Peru or Denmark. And that this will all be accomplished so gradually after a series of crises in which people will be desperate for strong leadership who will gladly sacrifice their individual freedom in exchange for being fed and sheltered.
That's why I said "most" and not "all" earlier. Although, I had (passed on) and have Black friends here in SW Virginia that lived in the 50's and '60's and most all did just fine. Most were small business owners, others had good jobs, both earning them wealth, nice houses and many friendships.
There's articles of Jews doing fine in the Third Reich too. There were even Jews in Hitler's army.(See: Werner Goldberg). And I'm certain that the majority German populace back then thought of themselves as benefitting from Hitler's laws back then.
If you want to say that the 50's/60's was the Golden era for White Americans that's perfectly fine but that era was definitely not the Golden Age for all Americans.
I'm sure the majority of Black Americans are more likely to see the 70's or 90's as the Golden Era for Black America. I've seen a lot of AA's in real life celebrate those two decades in particular.
So, I think a distinction should be made tbh because a lot of my older relatives went through hell back in White America's "golden era" in the 50/60's and they were some of the most hard working, friendliest people you'll ever meet even to this very day.
Regardless of what your friends had, it can't be disputed that there is more freedom for Black people TODAY than in the 1950s and 60s. This still Virginia we're talking about. Jim Crow was still in force back in those days.
Aside from some of the south, blacks were doing just fine back in the 50's, and one could argue their culture was much more healthy than it is today. They had assimilated into the melting pot culture just like most immigrants strived to do.
Today they are devolving by naming their kids all sorts of afro-centric names, and everything from their family life (or lack thereof), education, music, attitudes toward regular white folks, language, etc. is headed in the wrong direction.
Granted it is with the help of the Democrats trying to make them feel like victims of whites, yet it has been the white Democrats who have treated them the worst in our countries history.
Heck even today they treat blacks as if they cannot fend for themselves.
This video of white liberals attitudes toward blacks is a perfect example;
Aside from some of the south, blacks were doing just fine back in the 50's, and one could argue their culture was much more healthy than it is today. They had assimilated into the melting pot culture just like most immigrants strived to do.
Today they are devolving by naming their kids all sorts of afro-centric names, and everything from their family life (or lack thereof), education, music, attitudes toward regular white folks, language, etc. is headed in the wrong direction.
Granted it is with the help of the Democrats trying to make them feel like victims of whites, yet it has been the white Democrats who have treated them the worst in our countries history.
Heck even today they treat blacks as if they cannot fend for themselves.
This video of white liberals attitudes toward blacks is a perfect example;
It sounds like you're nitpicking based on your personal feelings. Some of those things you named, especially with regards to the children's names, was done via coercion and fear of backlash rather than true, expressive freedom.
There's no way the 1950's was better for Black America than the 70's, 80's, and 90's. I never met an elderly Black person in my life who felt the 1950's was a great decade for Black people and I've interacted with tons who've lived through it. Even they feel the decades I named were better.
That's why I think it's better to specify that the 1950's/1960's was White America's glory years while the 70's and 90's was Black America's glory years.
Aside from some of the south, blacks were doing just fine back in the 50's, and one could argue their culture was much more healthy than it is today. They had assimilated into the melting pot culture just like most immigrants strived to do.
Today they are devolving by naming their kids all sorts of afro-centric names
`
interesting, because redlining was happening during those decades, so although some blacks were doing just fine, they could have been doing better if whites didn't withhold such opportunities. Black folks were denied admission into some universities well into the 50's and 60's.
Can you explain how is naming a child an afro-centric name is "devolving?"
There's articles of Jews doing fine in the Third Reich too. There were even Jews in Hitler's army.(See: Werner Goldberg). And I'm certain that the majority German populace back then thought of themselves as benefitting from Hitler's laws back then.
If you want to say that the 50's/60's was the Golden era for White Americans that's perfectly fine but that era was definitely not the Golden Age for all Americans.
I'm sure the majority of Black Americans are more likely to see the 70's or 90's as the Golden Era for Black America. I've seen a lot of AA's in real life celebrate those two decades in particular.
So, I think a distinction should be made tbh because a lot of my older relatives went through hell back in White America's "golden era" in the 50/60's and they were some of the most hard working, friendliest people you'll ever meet even to this very day.
During the Holocaust there were "Oberkapo", Jews who were willing to turn against Jews and work for the Nazis. This doesn't negate that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews.
Whenever I hear people say "Blacks had it good in the 1950s", I always here about things a person can control. I studied the 1950s in school, from elementary school and upward. That was the Jim Crow era. That was the era of Black people could be told "we don't rent to Blacks" or "we don't serve Blacks". There were many places where sundown laws were in the books.
I don't know any Black people who want the 1950s and 60s back either. Black people were going through getting fire hoses and police dogs turned on them. Churches were being blown up because they were staging centers for the civil rights movement. Fewer Blacks were in the middle class in those days. If the 1950s were so good for Black people, why are so many Black people saying NO to that era? I challenge readers here to think about that.
If we could think for ourselves (not listen to the media), have the two stupid parties work together more like in the past (instead of getting in the way), and have a better read and educated populace... we'd be headed in the right direction. But all of that requires a consensus and a will. People have become too lazy, and jaded, and complacent. To forge any kind of healthy movement forward would require us to be on the same page, but we're more adrift than ever. Most countries and societies in decline show the same pattern, which just reflects the nature of humanity and its weaknesses.
During the Holocaust there were "Oberkapo", Jews who were willing to turn against Jews and work for the Nazis. This doesn't negate that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews.
Whenever I hear people say "Blacks had it good in the 1950s", I always here about things a person can control. I studied the 1950s in school, from elementary school and upward. That was the Jim Crow era. That was the era of Black people could be told "we don't rent to Blacks" or "we don't serve Blacks". There were many places where sundown laws were in the books.
I don't know any Black people who want the 1950s and 60s back either. Black people were going through getting fire hoses and police dogs turned on them. Churches were being blown up because they were staging centers for the civil rights movement. Fewer Blacks were in the middle class in those days. If the 1950s were so good for Black people, why are so many Black people saying NO to that era? I challenge readers here to think about that.
Exactly. People nitpick certain stats to paint a false reality. I'm sure, if I look up the statistics of Jewish success in Germany under the Third Reich, it would look good on paper but it won't tell the whole story.
1950's paints a false picture of Blacks being these subservient people who "knew their place" when things like the Cicero Race Riot in Chicago back in 1951 and the numerous unreported battles between pro-segregation and pro-integration civilians happened which tell a totally different story. The Civil Rights movement didn't just spring out of nowhere when MLK was getting on. It was already brewing since the 40's.
I already know that the idea that Whites kept Blacks in check back in those days is what appeals the most to people who claim it was a "glorious era" for AA's. And I know this isn't really the type of forum to admit that sort of thing but it personally doesn't offend me at all.
But that's precisely why I think the "glory years" of America deserves specificity.
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.
