None of which provides an answer to any underlying questions that would actually get to the heart of the matter. Just how much consideration and assistance should the black community be given, so that it may get ahead in an unfair world? Should they be placed ahead and above everyone else who is finding it difficult to cut it on their own due to their ancestors not being given a fair chance in life?
Pff. You can get welfare even when you work 40 hours a week. It all doesn't change a thing for their social economic status. I see you can't rebuke my sources. Bohoo.
Yet Jim Crow laws were not national law like in South Africa and existed in only parts of the nation. It was slowly killed off in the 1950s and 1960s since the Constitution protected all. The CRA of 1964 and the VRA of 1965 finished it off. Ergo, your argument is flawed and false. http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/a-brief-history-of-jim-crow On May 17, 1954, at the stroke of noon, the nine Supreme Court Justices announced their unanimous decision in the four cases, now grouped as Brown v. Board of Education. They held that racial segregation of children in public schools, even in schools of equal quality, hurt minority children. “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The practice violated the Constitution’s 14th amendment and must stop. To some, the judgment seemed the fruitful end of a long struggle. Actually, the struggle had just begun. For the sane members of the forum, a historical recap: http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid APARTHEID COMES TO AN END In 1976, when thousands of black children in Soweto, a black township outside Johannesburg, demonstrated against the Afrikaans language requirement for black African students, the police opened fire with tear gas and bullets. The protests and government crackdowns that followed, combined with a national economic recession, drew more international attention to South Africa and shattered all illusions that apartheid had brought peace or prosperity to the nation. The United Nations General Assembly had denounced apartheid in 1973, and in 1976 the UN Security Council voted to impose a mandatory embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa. In 1985, the United Kingdom and United States imposed economic sanctions on the country. Under pressure from the international community, the National Party government of Pieter Botha sought to institute some reforms, including abolition of the pass laws and the ban on interracial sex and marriage. The reforms fell short of any substantive change, however, and by 1989 Botha was pressured to step aside in favor of F.W. de Klerk. De Klerk’s government subsequently repealed the Population Registration Act, as well as most of the other legislation that formed the legal basis for apartheid. A new constitution, which enfranchised blacks and other racial groups, took effect in 1994, and elections that year led to a coalition government with a nonwhite majority, marking the official end of the apartheid system.
Oh lol.... so much for your Obama example! lol And I wouldn't know why assistance to poor people should ever end, and deprive children who got born in poverty get an equal opportunity in life in the US. Or are you going to say, the almost wealthiest nation on the planet can't afford this?
I grew up in the South, and yeah, it was apartheid, and it was bad. I got a real shock, however, when I went up north for the first time and saw nearly as much separation of the races, plus what seemed to me like a lot more tension, and "coolness," not just between the races, but as among everybody.
What is being said is that there is no legitimate excuse, none whatsoever, to continue with affirmative action, and using race as a basis for determining who gets ahead, and who does not. The notion that diversity is of greater importance than qualification is nonsense. If black individuals lack the qualifications for education or employment in the most prestigious of fields, and instead have to settle for lower levels of each, that is simply too bad. No one is entitled to a six figure annual salary.
Interracial marriage was widely banned in the US. It took the supreme court in 1967!!!!... to make states like California with 90% of the rest of the country to end their racist ways. (ergo, the great melting pot, is a myth) And discrimination of the black community was all over: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chin-jou/the-jim-crow-north-new-york-civil-rights_b_5613150.html
I already replied to this in post 606... And again in my last post. Your just ranting your mantra, and not paying any attention. No money simply means no opportunity to have a good education. That is the qualification you're ignoring. And that is what I'm talking about.
Yup, officially over 50 years ago this year. Feel free to quote me when I ever denied this. No tell me again how the United States today is just like Apartheid.
Of course to you, anything disproving your bias is to be ignored. Just because it denies what you are trying to claim you want to dismiss it. Figures.
That is not what you are talking about. You are saying give preference to blacks whether they deserve it or not. And at a cost to taxpayers including those blacks that have succeeded. Turning on your own now are you?
Cite your source for saying that welfare is available when working a forty hour week. As for "rebuking your sources", you have none other than those you make up so why bother.
It can certainly afford birth control to mitigate the birthrate. But then the welfare state would soon disappear and you don't want that do you.
The one action that could take place today, that would have the greatest impact with minorities on education, housing, and employment, would be to remove the millions of illegal aliens living in the United States.
Oh I meant the US back than was an apartheid state. I mean... South Africa isn't an apartheid state today either.... How could you miss this?
I don't ignore it... you just can't deny it doesn't put a dent in the amount of black people at the bottom of the social ladder.
I'm just curious why you are harping on something that ended over 50 years ago. I was 9 when the Voting Rights Act was passed. Why do you think it's so important to keep comparing the US of old to the South Africa of old?
Because such laws existed at one point in time, no matter how long ago, they have forever hindered those that were originally affected by them, making it absolutely impossible for the affected group to even hope to do better on its own, meaning they must be helped out forever by those that are not them.
If that's the logic, then the Brits owe me for centuries off oppression, degradation and theft from my Irish ancestors. When I'm paid off, maybe I can spare a few shillings for others. Next up the Italians for their centuries of destruction.
