Here's an excellent read by Elizabeth Wright who is black. Thought I ought to get that fact out before our leading liberal forum
members read this one.
The Civil Rights Myth
Integration & the End of Black Self-Reliance
-Elizabeth Wright
If Congress had resisted the social pressures and stood by the principles in the Constitution, what was supposedly a race problem would quickly have been resolved. And imagine, the black bourgeoisie would have had to compete in order to prosper.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-myth-of-civil-rights/
Good article and hit the nail on the head!
Theres one thing in this world that racism and discrimination will never control, that is the color of green. I remember when there were a ton of black businesses, and communities of black areas that met their own needs. In early 1800's eli whitney invented a ton of stuff, including the cotton gin, a amory, medical devices ect. His son after his death invented the whitneyville colts that the texas rangers used. Then went onto build a water plant and other various interests. The entire whitney family father, son grandsons all went on to invent, and become successful businessmen that competed with white folks. What happened? There were many many many blacks that became highly successful, powerful and did it through competition not integration and socialization.
Why would it matter whether she's black or not? A black writer is no more correct or not than a white writer.( Why the snipe at "liberals?'' That wasn't necessary.) She's gotten some things right and some wrong. The deep south had the ugly forms of discrimination, from the separate drinking fountains, marked white only and colored only. The white one was usually a true nice drinking fountain and the colored only was something less, possibly a piece of junk or just a spigot. (I saw it myself!) It was done to make a point. Yes, I know, at least there was water. Some gas stations had whites only restrooms and an out house out back for colored, if that. Ugly kidnappings and deaths were wrong! As far as commerce is concerned ,you go back far enough, the town and city colored folks did just fine here and north of here .. (I can't say about the south except what I read and that wasn't pretty.) The colored areas of Philly, New York did have nice colored owned stores, ( banks would loan them money) They had good jobs ,spent their money and nobody gave it a thought until the south exploded. The civil rights movement did hurt them. The black communities, mostly, but not all urban, felt they had to go along. The young adult black males, much like many young adult white males, didn't have a lick of sense and followed into artificially created trouble. Not thinking about the long range economic impact, some burned out their own communities. Many of those areas never did recover.
Red, I have no idea how old you are, but I lived through that period as a child and young adult. I remember it quite well, at least the parts I was exposed to. I don't know where you live, but I don't know if you've even known any middle class black people.
Steve, what's a amory? The only problem with colored businesses was the ones that depended on bank loans to get started. Many banks wouldn't loan money to colored. Inventors usually did OK because they could start small and get money to start with from their own communities, where people had money "on the street." to loan. Washington DC is very strange in that it had and still has areas of very poor rough blacks with terrible homicide rates, and also areas with extremely wealthy multi millionaire blacks that live totally separately and want nothing to do with those "street niggers."
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 05, 2010, 09:14:41 AM
The deep south had the ugly forms of discrimination, from the separate drinking fountains, marked white only and colored only. The white one was usually a true nice drinking fountain and the colored only was something less, possibly a piece of junk or just a spigot. (I saw it myself!) It was done to make a point.
Whoa hold on a min, that is not true. THey did have separate fountains and separate bathrooms. But the water fountain was a waterfountain, no different that the whites only fountain. How do i know, i was there, during that time. And there was no difference in the facilities. I on more than one occasion was scolded for drinking out of the wrong fountain. To me they were the same and no difference. The ONLY DIFFERENCE IS Location and signage. The whites fountain was centrally located and easier to get to, the blacks fountains were located in some back hallway near the restrooms.
Secondly in the restaurants, there was a colored entrance and a white entrance. The colored entrance usually was in the back, and they sat in the back of the restaurant while whites got seats by the street. Never figured out why the whites wanted street scene over back of the house.
The food was the same, the plates, silver and service were the same. Only they had a black waitress serving the blacks.
QuoteYes, I know, at least there was water. Some gas stations had whites only restrooms and an out house out back for colored, if that.
And i remember outhouses for the whites too in many stations. You gotta remember some of those stations were old enough to be first built in the early 1900's.
QuoteSteve, what's a amory?
Armory i typo'd.
QuoteThe only problem with colored businesses was the ones that depended on bank loans to get started. Many banks wouldn't loan money to colored. Inventors usually did OK because they could start small and get money to start with from their own communities, where people had money "on the street." to loan. Washington DC is very strange in that it had and still has areas of very poor rough blacks with terrible homicide rates, and also areas with extremely wealthy multi millionaire blacks that live totally separately and want nothing to do with those "street niggers."
back then no one loaned money unless your credit was impecible and most whites couldn't get a loan if they tried unless they were rich as far as business loans. Most businesses were started on a kitchen table and grown on a cash basis only. Even Xerox, apple, companies like that were started on kitchen tables or in garages and grown on sales of prototypes and such. It wasn't until the businesses were established and had assets and working capital before they could get loans. Most borrowing was done amongst friends and families.
I don't understand this concept that everything has to be equal and fair. Poppycock is what that is. Because someones skin is darker than mine isn't reason enough to penalize me for my color and stack the deck in their favor.
One thing that really torques me is when i see two people going for the same job. ONe is immensely quailified and has more than the job requests the other candidate doesn't meet the requirements of the position and that person gets the job because he's not white. Thats bull crap. I have had it done to me before, and if i ever have it done again, i would sue for discrimination. But they use that BS entitlement program that hires minorities over whites. I'm sorry but if the minority isn't smart enough for the job then don't hire them. IF they can't compete in a job market, then thats their problem. Go to school and get up to speed and become qualified. I earn my way, its not been given to me on a silver platter. i have never had someone give me my job, i earned my jobs. I have never had a education given to me i earned it. I expect the same out of anyone in this country. Earn it or get out of my way.
Sorry Steve, I'm telling you what I saw with my own eyes, mostly in VA. and NC. We drove down there many times over the years, often going to Cape Hatteras, but also Raleigh, Richmond, Roanoke, Wheeling and more further south than that. Yes, there were old places that had out houses for all. A few had same fountains. I only mentioned the ones where there was, sadly, a distinct difference. The water fountains I saw were not inside at all . The doors to the rest rooms were on the outside of the building, as were the water fountains. There were no halls. I do remember the eating places. Some didn't serve colored at all, and there were signs posted, others were as you remember.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 05, 2010, 02:21:36 PM
Sorry Steve, I'm telling you what I saw with my own eyes, mostly in VA. and NC. We drove down there many times over the years, often going to Cape Hatteras, but also Raleigh, Richmond, Roanoke, Wheeling and more further south than that. Yes, there were old places that had out houses for all. A few had same fountains. I only mentioned the ones where there was, sadly, a distinct difference. The water fountains I saw were not inside at all . The doors to the rest rooms were on the outside of the building, as were the water fountains. There were no halls. I do remember the eating places. Some didn't serve colored at all, and there were signs posted, others were as you remember.
You also have to remember a lot of places were just plain outright poor. I know places right now today, that do not have plumbing, water or even wood floors that people live in. Still use outhouses and still haul water from the creek. I supsect that you were on a coastal run, and that area is still destitute in many areas especially around piedmont NC. All along i95 down from williamsburg to around Savannah is very poor still in many areas, and there was a lot of what you were syaing. West SC, NC, Georgia, Alabama, MS, Tennessee all had less of it but it was still there. But there was a lot of folks that would go to the black restaurants. The black restaurants did a thriving business. One that i remembered was Aunt Fannies Cabin and it was always packed out. Southern food at its finest. The whole concept, Mind you black owned in the 60's 70's 80's, menu was on a board that the owners kids would walk around with hanging over their shoulders. long tables much like picknick tables, and you sat down and ordered and waited. Then when it was served it was brought out by rather large black women dressed as mammies and they would serve your first plate to you by dishing it up, and bowls of food were left on the table for seconds and thirds...
I remember a couple years ago not sure when one particular black restaurant closed due to times i guess. Couldn't make it anymore. it was a restaurant that king used to frequent during his civil rights thing, and the restaurant lived for a long time on that fame. Now its like folks go soooo what.
Now why am i tellin you about these two restaurants? Because....
The first restaurant was started by someone who had excellent business sense. He had a theme for his restaurant, and a target clientelle.
The second was in existance and served blacks in the 60's and lived off of its noteriety because king ate there.
The first restaurant was boycotted and eventually put out of business by the NAACP for being Politically incorrect,
The second restaurant died because it never had any substance to begin with and without the intelligent thinking that went on in AFC this second restaurant could not draw new customers in. When its old customers died off, there wasn't anything left to do but shut the doors.
Yes Steve, I taught poor kids in Cecil county MD. ( Elkton. yes, that one ) ;) Muddy Lane and Dogwood Road, dirt floors, Kerosene heat and no plumbing, very little electric and they bucketed their water from Elk Creek, which is the far upper end of the Chesapeake Bay. But they worked very hard, had big gardens and managed pretty well.
Sounds just like the way that I grew up, and I suspect many from my generation around these parts did the same. We had an outhouse, a hand driven well, and no indoor plumbing. We had a kerosene cookstove, and a coal stove for heat. Yes we raised a large garden, and chickens every year for meat. Baths were taken on the kitchen floor in a washtub. Mom was really uptown when she got water to the kitchen sink, and a cesspool to catch the dishwater. We did not have an indoor bathroom until 1952. Poor? I guess we were, but we had a family with security. We read to one another at night while the rest of us cracked nuts or sorted a barrel of scrap hardware my dad brought home for recycling. I made A's all through school, and grew up with a love for reading. It was a wonderment for me when I found out I could read a 'big' book that had no pictures; just those mind absorbing words. Diane I think you must have been a gift for those children. And Steve, what Diane is saying goes along with what I remember seeing. One of my first jobs was as a waitress in a small restraunt next to the Missouri Pacific station in Wichita. Part of my job was to serve the colored porters and conductors in the back part of the business. The accomodations were nowhere near as nice as those the upfront patrons enjoyed; however those men always got good service from me and they always got good food from the management. I was very pleased when I received a tip from these gentlemen.
Quote from: sixdogsmom on June 05, 2010, 08:59:22 PM
Sounds just like the way that I grew up, and I suspect many from my generation around these parts did the same. We had an outhouse, a hand driven well, and no indoor plumbing. We had a kerosene cookstove, and a coal stove for heat. Yes we raised a large garden, and chickens every year for meat. Baths were taken on the kitchen floor in a washtub. Mom was really uptown when she got water to the kitchen sink, and a cesspool to catch the dishwater. We did not have an indoor bathroom until 1952. Poor? I guess we were, but we had a family with security. We read to one another at night while the rest of us cracked nuts or sorted a barrel of scrap hardware my dad brought home for recycling. I made A's all through school, and grew up with a love for reading. It was a wonderment for me when I found out I could read a 'big' book that had no pictures; just those mind absorbing words. Diane I think you must have been a gift for those children. And Steve, what Diane is saying goes along with what I remember seeing. One of my first jobs was as a waitress in a small restraunt next to the Missouri Pacific station in Wichita. Part of my job was to serve the colored porters and conductors in the back part of the business. The accomodations were nowhere near as nice as those the upfront patrons enjoyed; however those men always got good service from me and they always got good food from the management. I was very pleased when I received a tip from these gentlemen.
Well as far as the living conditions, i am talking bout today folks are living like that. If you ever have been up in the n ga mountains right on the state line of NC, SC, GA you will find the poorest of the poor you have ever seen. That area is where the foxfire books were written about and from. Still that way today.
On the other topic, i am not your age so i wouldn't have seen it in the 50's, but i grew up with it in the 60's, and 70's and in the hotbed of it in atlanta. Like the article said, i believe that it would have corrected itself if government had of stayed out of all of it. Like i said before, no one discriminates against green. I grew up in that era, was around it, personally i have seen more racism develop towards whites than ever was towards the blacks in the years since. The biggest racists on the planet today are jesse jackson, and the kings in atlanta, that rev up in new york can't remember his name and maxine walters or waters not sure of last name. Those individuals made fortunes off of stirring up trouble.
It is still strange here to not see black folks around in this area.
The racial troubles in the South were initiated by the north/yankees. Folks got along
pretty good among themselves in the South until the yankees took control in 1865.
After the WBTS, the yankees separated the whites and blacks and the yankees stirred
hatred between them.
Of course, since then, the gov't schools have not taught the truths to whites and blacks.
How else can they justify Lincoln's war?
Gee Red, I don't get your point. Couldn't you say it at least 3 or 4 more times? ::) After more than 100 years most kids see "Lincoln's War" as very long ago and having little to do with now.... except for the neat uniforms the reenactment folks have.
Yes, I can just see a little black kid being told he was lied to and saying "What, you mean my great great grandfather WASN"T a slave?" At this point the whole Civil war could be dropped out of the history books all together and I'm not sure many would be upset. Read about it on the internet and decide for yourself. Right now we are at war, the economy, although improving, is still bad. Our Gulf is in trouble,11 people died. Our Tri State Bird Rescue is there helping many teams clean oiled birds. The Civil War isn't very high on most people's menus right now. By the way, is there a reason not one word about the accident in the Gulf of Mexico has been mentioned on here? If the Gulf Stream picks it up it could come almost to us. It's a terrible thing but very interesting to watch and learn about.
Diane, you've a strange imagination regarding black folks (and white folks too).
It's an old liberal trait that's difficult to let go.
What's wrong with a black knowing that his ancestor was a slave? It sounds like you
want blacks to feel bad about themselves. I suggest that you start at the beginning
and re-read Elizabeth Wright's column so that you'll understand. Let me know when you
decide to support the abolishment of the MLK holiday.
I can remember a trip from Colorado to Hattiesburg, Mississippi, when I was a teen. We stopped at a gas station and were surrounded by about six young black men pumping the gas, checking the oil, tires, etc. I was also employed as a gas station attendant and was making $1 an hour. I asked them how much they were making and they said 10 cents and hour. How truthful they were, I don't know. After getting gas, we pulled into a restaurant. There was a white entrance and a colored entrance. We almost sat in the colored area not knowing what it was. The waitress rescued us and pointed us in the right direction. There were restrooms for the white folk and an outhouse in the back for the colored. White waitresses served the whites and black waitresses served the blacks. I assume we all got the same food, but I don't know for sure.
Having not really witnessed segregation, I was pretty awed by the whole thing. But then, while living as a youngster in New Mexico, all the blacks lived north of Main Street and had their own school. I was just reading a letter from my Aunt Emmaline Leonard about my mother when she was young. Emmaline mentioned there was a pair of black twin girls in the school in Howard and my mom would link arms with them after school and walk part of the way home with them. Being a teacher, my mom taught a few black women (adults) how to read at our kitchen table.
Larryj
Yes, Larry for better or for worse those are memories much like I had too. I'm sure it wasn't like that everywhere, but I know what I saw. I know I saw places that wouldn't serve blacks at all, but I think they finally got shamed into even if there was seperate seating. I was told once, no proof, that one man was so determined to serve only who he wanted because it was his place that he shut down and moved away rather than serve colored. Supposedly around Richmond somewhere.
Red, I don't what you are up to, but it won't work. You can call me a liberal all you want and it only proves you don't know me. Does that make you a very selfish uncaring cold hearted bigot? I hope not. You are the one who says everyone is being lied to about the Civil War, why wouldn't the little kid be lied to about his lineage? It doesn't bother me, I never owned any slaves nor did my family, so no guilt crosses my plate or has to be justified. Frankly, I can't say I care much about what you think of me. You try to insult me and stick it to me whenever you can, but it doesn't matter to me. I grew up with poor, comfortable, and wealthy lower, middle and upper middle class blacks and whites who valued their education and are now retiring to good pensions. Imagination has nothing to do with it. Why are you so seeming obsessed with the Civil War anyway? A hobby? reenactment group? Bored with life? Some day will you ever come to terms with the fact that however it happened, the South lost? And the winner gets to write the history. Everybody who goes to war intends to win and will do whatever is necessary, and certainly sometimes unnecessary, to make that happen!
As far as the MLK holiday, it's not my holiday but why would I take issue with it? Around here its a "do good for the community day." Lots of painting, home repairs for shut ins and that kind of thing. How is that a bad thing ?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 06, 2010, 02:18:39 PM
Gee Red, I don't get your point. Couldn't you say it at least 3 or 4 more times? ::) After more than 100 years most kids see "Lincoln's War" as very long ago and having little to do with now.... except for the neat uniforms the reenactment folks have.
Yes, I can just see a little black kid being told he was lied to and saying "What, you mean my great great grandfather WASN"T a slave?" At this point the whole Civil war could be dropped out of the history books all together and I'm not sure many would be upset. Read about it on the internet and decide for yourself.
And thats the problem right there, Diane. Thanks to our education system and its progressive way of thinking and teaching, kids these days have no idea about the true history of this country.
QuoteRight now we are at war, the economy, although improving, is still bad. Our Gulf is in trouble,11 people died. Our Tri State Bird Rescue is there helping many teams clean oiled birds. The Civil War isn't very high on most people's menus right now. By the way, is there a reason not one word about the accident in the Gulf of Mexico has been mentioned on here? If the Gulf Stream picks it up it could come almost to us. It's a terrible thing but very interesting to watch and learn about.
As for the economy improving, no its not. If it were our dollar would be going up, gold would be going down, people would be finding more permanent jobs not just temporary gov't jobs, and the market would be showing a steady increase. Compare the market trends of right before the great depression with today, they are pretty much the same. As for the oil spill goes, my question is why hasn't gas gone up? I mean, we are at war, there is threat of even more war in the middle east, forcasters are predicting a more active hurricane season, and its the start of the summer season, and theres the oil spill. Usually even one of those is enough to cause a rise in gas prices, now we have all of them together gas should be through the roof.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 06, 2010, 07:55:36 PM
Why are you so seeming obsessed with the Civil War anyway? A hobby? reenactment group? Bored with life? Some day will you ever come to terms with the fact that however it happened, the South lost? And the winner gets to write the history.
That mentality of the winner gets to write history is gone now. WIth the internet and the truth being brought out in journals that were kept durin gthe civil war, the truth is coming out, and the official "history" is being proven false.
I have no doubt there is a lot to tell on the south's side .It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between "truth,"as is told in family stories handed down through the generations and "facts" which may or may not be the same. Have some of that in my own family. It just puzzles me that the same folks who seem to have no interest in D-Day yesterday, that affected almost all of us, are still ready to do battle again over the Civil War. We say, yes, it's so long ago interest wains, memories fade. The people are long gone. If you think any high schools of any kind are suddenly going to starting teaching long involved units about the Civil war from any perspective, north or south, I think you'd be wrong. IMHO. TV shows from a different perspective sure, why not. More museums from the south's perspective, go for it. College courses about it, why not. We don't see high schools teaching long involved units about the Holocaust either. It wiped out many relatives of families of Jews still living here in this country today.
As far as another zing at our education system, how long would you have the kid's day be to double or triple the history taught in any given year? Do really think private schools teach that much more history? I'd have to ask, but I doubt it.
There are parents who are just as demanding about their child's math, sciences, reading, languages, literature etc. who don't put history nearly as high on their priorities for their kids. I'm sure you can figure out why. Just like some history majors in college find out ,ya learned a lot of really interesting stuff, but what are you going to do with it? And considering what classes now cost per credit hour, one does not take that lightly! ;)
As far as kids today nor knowing very much history, I agree. They did have it in school, learned enough to get through the course and promptly forgot it. THEY DON'T CARE! Most, not all of course are only interested in what seems relevant to them at the time. Later yes, especially when they travel and get to see things first hand. I suspect most on here like history more now than they did in school I've said it and will keep saying it, history text books should be written by historians, not politicians or anyone with a personal agenda.
If Warph wrote a book I'd have to delete most of it due to the nasty name calling and generalizing! I'd say the same for Varmit but he's still too young. ;D
So what would you like to see taught that isn't? Specifics please. What grade? How long? Who should teach it? Role play? Individual research? What would you have as a culminating exercise? What kind of test or evaluation? Field trip? Visitor to school? If some parents object what would you do?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 07, 2010, 03:03:35 PM
I have no doubt there is a lot to tell on the south's side .It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between "truth,"as is told in family stories handed down through the generations and "facts" which may or may not be the same. Have some of that in my own family. It just puzzles me that the same folks who seem to have no interest in D-Day yesterday, that affected almost all of us, are still ready to do battle again over the Civil War.
Because D-day was a war we shouldn't have been in. We were forced into that war. We were told it would be good for the economy. You really think that it was a big surprise to the president at that time that japan bombed the ships with their planes? Think again. It was allowed to justify bringing the us into a war. 9 years earlier Admiral King simulated the same exact attack....
In the Grand Joint Army-Navy Exercises of 1932, Pearl Harbor was "attacked" in a training simulation by 152 planes a half-hour before dawn (on a Sunday). An attack which caught the "defenders" of Pearl Harbor completely by surprise. In 1938, Admiral Ernst King led a carrier-born air strike from the USS Saratoga against Pearl Harbor in another exercise. Again, the "attackers" were successful in achieving total surprise.
Yes i have studied ww2, ww1, too. But the civil war is the ONLY war we have had that was over our constitutional freedoms. It by far is the most important one we had aside from the revolutionary war.
QuoteWe say, yes, it's so long ago interest wains, memories fade. The people are long gone. If you think any high schools of any kind are suddenly going to starting teaching long involved units about the Civil war from any perspective, north or south, I think you'd be wrong. IMHO.
I don't expect it, they don't even teach it without chopping out all the politically incorrect information now. Eventually there will be no history of this country to teach.
QuoteTV shows from a different perspective sure, why not. More museums from the south's perspective, go for it. College courses about it, why not. We don't see high schools teaching long involved units about the Holocaust either. It wiped out many relatives of families of Jews still living here in this country today.
Oh thats another avenue i have seen taught in schools. Holocaust denial.
QuoteAs far as another zing at our education system, how long would you have the kid's day be to double or triple the history taught in any given year? Do really think private schools teach that much more history? I'd have to ask, but I doubt it.
Actually yeah they do. They go into detail. I do have to say one thing good about southern schools, they do teach history from the revolution to the war of agression and it is very indepth. By the time a child graduates, they do know the truth about this country and where we are at in its current state.
QuoteThere are parents who are just as demanding about their child's math, sciences, reading, languages, literature etc.
Hmm remove languages and make it a elective. Only 1 language is needed in schools and that is english.
Quotewho don't put history nearly as high on their priorities for their kids. I'm sure you can figure out why. Just like some history majors in college find out ,ya learned a lot of really interesting stuff, but what are you going to do with it? And considering what classes now cost per credit hour, one does not take that lightly! ;)
well i guess those of us who paid attention in history class won't be surprised when history repeats itself. We'll know how it happened before it happens. Like i said a while back, this administration and its political malpractice is exactly what happened in 1856 that led to the states seceding and the war of aggression.
Last of all, if we don't teach our children where we as a nation came from, how we got to where we are today, they are doomed. It cheapens the blood sacrifice that was given for this country. History doesn't have to be boring. I can tell you one thing, do a re-enactment in front of a group of kids, they remember every single detail of the event. Re-enacters are the most accurate and stickler to detail. IF you examine their apparal, it is exact, their weapons are exact including what weapons were used by certain ranks. Stitching of the clothes are period specific, you will find no more accurate accounting of the events.
i don't care what one teaches, but i do expect that the information being taught to be accurate.
I'd be very interested to know what you Rebels have to say about the "Black Codes" of many different kinds that appeared after the emancipation proclamation, and the Jim Crow laws that followed. I was always puzzled by folks who made sure most Negroes couldn't own land and then made land ownership a necessity to vote. Supposedly the south was giving up it's slaves anyway but then that? None too friendly I'd say.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 14, 2010, 02:36:01 PM
I was always puzzled by folks who made sure most Negroes couldn't own land and then made land ownership a necessity to vote. Supposedly the south was giving up it's slaves anyway but then that? None too friendly I'd say.
First of all, the right to vote required that you be a property owner to begin with. Our forefathers knew that property owners had a investment in this country. MOST of the people in this country were property owners in that they ran business's, farmed, ect ect... Rental properties were not the norm back then.
The idea is still a valid and wonderful idea. It ensures that the producers in this country, elect its leaders, and by only allowing property owners the right to vote, they could control taxation. Unfortunately today too many non property owners can vote, and they have discovered voting can get them largess. They are nothing but consumers, not producers. I would say its the number one reason why we are in the financial shape as far as a country can be in.
Hell we just had the Non producers vote in a tax increase to cover non insured, illegals, and any other consumer/non producer.
It was never about blacks not being able to vote. And blacks did own land if they bought it. Sorry but that lie won't float. After the civil war, many of the former slaves got an acre or two of land and usually the house they had lived in prior to the war. Maybe not the old large plantations, but not all slaves were treated as slaves too. MOst of the slaves were treated decently, working on small farms and such. I can't say about the north as their slavery went on well into the 1880's.
What about jim crow laws? Remember the Klan? do you really know the true history of the klan? it was never about killing blacks. It was about running off the slime from the north coming down and raping everything they can get their hands on after the war. They were successful but then once they were run off, some of the ones in the klan got bored and then decided to run off anything that wasn't white. So Nathan Bedford Forrest dissolved the klan because of it. Later on i think around 1900 it was revived as a group that went after blacks. Its awful funny how this happened after the civil war, but as power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the ones in power are the ones who were setting up things.
The jim crow laws were passed in every state. So you can't lay that blame on the south. It was just as illegal for a white to marry into any other race in michigan as it was in florida, or in Deleware to california.
BTW the black codes weren't just in the south either. Illinois, mi, and several other northern states passed them too. But to answer your question on the south, after 1866, the north put the south under Military control, and controlled all the elections in the south and during the so called reconstruction. Most of the black codes were passed and enacted in 1860.
Now that's what I was interested in, your take on all that. But you didn't mention the poll taxes and literacy tests.
As far as non property owners now not having the right to vote, are you assuming that people who don't choose to own property are some how dumber or something? Some very high paying jobs are not conducive to property ownership. We have people in Delaware right now who are bridge builders working on a big new bridge over Indian River Inlet. They rent for a year or two, or as long as the project lasts and move on. That includes the engineers and very well paid steel and construction people who leave a lot of money in the communities they are in while the project goes on. They shouldn't vote? There are many more examples, including a whole trailer park near here that has many short term rentals of professional people working on computer projects or are in sales. Most probably will buy homes some day but they figure during their sales and travel years why own a home you are never in? No vote for them either? Look at all the seniors who have done the homeowner bit and no longer want the maintenance or up keep. They move into small apartments, independent living or assisted living complexes, only to have you take away their voting privileges? Talk about government interference and an elitist agenda! You mess with some of my senior friends and they'll toss you in the pool, especially the members of the stock and bond club at the senior center! You would also eliminate most New York City residents. How about the people now who build the wind farms? I'll bet not all of them own homes. Not everybody sees property ownership the way you do.
By the way, I disagree that in colonial times most people were property owners...not true. The upper crust made sure of that. Share croppers and such didn't own their land. The shop and business owners and factories and mines had employees who didn't make enough to own land. Some couldn't even afford weapons, hence the armories for the militia, but that's another topic. Most were totally disenfranchised.
We just celebrated Separation Day again. Know what that means?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 14, 2010, 07:41:35 PM
Now that's what I was interested in, your take on all that. But you didn't mention the poll taxes and literacy tests.
As far as non property owners now not having the right to vote, are you assuming that people who don't choose to own property are some how dumber or something?
Never said that did i. I agree with the way it was originally setup. It was the best way to ensure that govt didn't get out of control. Poll taxes literacy tests thats was all created as a result of reconstruction.
QuoteSome very high paying jobs are not conducive to property ownership.
Not my problem. Their consumers then.
QuoteWe have people in Delaware right now who are bridge builders working on a big new bridge over Indian River Inlet. They rent for a year or two, or as long as the project lasts and move on. That includes the engineers and very well paid steel and construction people who leave a lot of money in the communities they are in while the project goes on. They shouldn't vote?
No not if their not property owners. They also are not producers. They don't produce jobs.
QuoteThere are many more examples, including a whole trailer park near here that has many short term rentals of professional people working on computer projects or are in sales. Most probably will buy homes some day but they figure during their sales and travel years why own a home you are never in? No vote for them either?
when they buy property then yeah. until then no.
QuoteLook at all the seniors who have done the homeowner bit and no longer want the maintenance or up keep. They move into small apartments, independent living or assisted living complexes, only to have you take away their voting privileges? Talk about government interference and an elitist agenda! [
Its their choice. sorry but are they producing? Nope not a bit.
QuoteYou mess with some of my senior friends and they'll toss you in the pool, especially the members of the stock and bond club at the senior center! You would also eliminate most New York City residents. How about the people now who build the wind farms? I'll bet not all of them own homes. Not everybody sees property ownership the way you do.
By the way, I disagree that in colonial times most people were property owners...not true. The upper crust made sure of that. Share croppers and such didn't own their land. The shop and business owners and factories and mines had employees who didn't make enough to own land. Some couldn't even afford weapons, hence the armories for the militia, but that's another topic. Most were totally disenfranchised.
We just celebrated Separation Day again. Know what that means?
You know what, it was setup that way cause it would work. And today we have a system that doesn't work. The voters today. IF they were producers, they wouldnt' allow this government to tax the crap out of them. They wouldnt' allow the government to grow as big as it is. The non producing voters have discovered they can vote themselves largess, steal other peoples money.
Right now personally i would like to see a voting system setup where everyone gets 1 vote. THen for every 5000 dollars you pay in taxes, that means write a check on april 15, after you get your deductions, and refunds, ect but every 5000 dollars you get an extra vote to cast. That would fix how government operates. The politicians would be so afraid to tax anyone or grow big government that they would suck it up and operate on a budget set by the producers.
And here I thought that was how big business and lobbyists already worked...buying votes! Good grief.
I am SERIOUSLY sittin here with an OMG look on my face readin this............Diane you are a worse glutton for punishment than I am arguing with this...............just when I think I can't possibly be shocked anymore........I am.....
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 14, 2010, 09:32:20 PM
And here I thought that was how big business and lobbyists already worked...buying votes! Good grief.
Thats not buying votes. the concept of producers keeping the taxes in check, since they don't want to pay taxes to begin with, works very well. Keeps the government in check as it cannot grow without the producers permissions.
Quote from: pamagain on June 14, 2010, 10:10:14 PM
I am SERIOUSLY sittin here with an OMG look on my face readin this............Diane you are a worse glutton for punishment than I am arguing with this...............just when I think I can't possibly be shocked anymore........I am.....
Come on now, why would a consumer be qualified to vote. THey consume, they don't produce. This country consumes too much. And the producers are stuck with the bill. Why don't the consumers pay for their fair share? You want to vote, take on the costs associated. But nooo thats too hard. So they are quite happy to consume, and vote themselves money/largess from the treasury because they don't want to spend any of their money to produce something of value.
You know Education is a great example. Why is it that we don't charge people for education. It is a proven fact that if you earn it you work harder to keep it. If its free, people don't give a rats fanny about it. Education is no different. Think that isn't true, go to any college campus today and watch the kids. the ones who have to work for their money, make the grade. The ones who get daddys money, or government money party hardy. Most of the ones that get free money to go to school, or on daddys nickle, usually end up on academic probation. They don't care.
Only when the screws are put to them do they knuckle down and get to work.
Same thing in middle and highschool. The kids don't have to work for it. If this wasn't true then your graduation rates, would be in the high 90%. You get what you put into it. Used to be parents footed the bill for education and shoved a foot up their kids ass when they didn't get good grades and learn. The fear of daddys foot gave them all the incentive to learn that they needed. Now days, its no biggie, you don't put forth the effort, you get a pass anyway. they'll move ya up into the next grade and you can " catch up". Only problem is there is no accountability. They just keep passing them up and out of their hair until they get to college. Thats why you have college remedial classes these days to do what the highscool didn't do.
Let's see now, we started out talking about "producer" rather than "consumers" and voting, and I'm still not sure I understand . When my Uncle Bill (Billy) still had working oil wells, there came a time when he had others hold the mineral leases and he, then we, got royalty checks for the oil. We still owned the land. So we could vote but the leaser couldn't? Around here we have lots of people who rent land to run cattle on and rent land for crops too. According to you they produce nothing and wouldn't be allowed to vote, but the land owner gets to vote who produced nothing but a rental check. Surely that's not what you meant. People who work produce something, even if it is information. They are paid to do it and then they can be consumers with the money they earned. Even baby sitters and lifeguards produce something. It's called a safe environment.
Education? We do charge people! It's called school taxes and one of the things I taught every class I ever had, even the third graders, was how their education was being paid for and why they shouldn't waste it. Most of them really got it. Very few of my regular kids had to go to summer school either, because if they were goofing off, I made sure they knew that their parents had to pay extra for it and that would be money they wouldn't have to spend on other things that summer. As far as other grades, many kids here do have jobs, some don't. Some buy their own school clothes, some only have to buy extras.
I was lucky enough to have 'Daddy's money" and didn't have to work during high school or college, but I sure didn't party myself into poor grades either. I was too busy with the band and other activities, and extra classes, and my parents just wouldn't have put up with it. They knew what I was capable of and expected me to live up to it.
As far as your other comments, about education,you are generalizing again! It does happen but not universally. I had a few parents who did lean on me to push their kids through and I refused. Usually the problem was attendance and behavior. Kids who aren't there, don't learn. The parents would complain and whine, usually to the principal, because they didn't want the stigma of a held back child who might get bored or embarrassed and would be bigger than the other kids. Horse feathers!
The kids who win full scholarships don't need remediation! You are being very unfair to the kids who do work hard. A few I knew were dyslexic or ADD and came from little schools that simply didn't have the resources for learning disabilities...Like the poor schools that you yourself mentioned. For a good many, English was a second language and remedial classes were welcomed.
As far as I'm concerned, colleges shouldn't be complaining. They know exactly the caliber of the schools the applicants attended. Why admit a kid from a high school that is known not to produce college quality kids? Just don't admit them!
UD has a large second semester sophomore drop out rate. The kids goof off, they may get through the general freshman classes. Then comes sophomore year and all bets are off. The classes are much tougher and they goof, they're gone.( Much to the shock to the parent's pocketbook.) Colleges now, for the most part, don't care how many years it takes a student to finish. 4 years? 5 or 6? Flunk out? Take more remedial classes and come back. You are a customer, not just a student.$$$$$$ Eventually most kids settle down and get to studying. It's the parents who keep paying, and paying. Then the #10 boot is appropriate!
QuoteCome on now, why would a consumer be qualified to vote. THey consume, they don't produce.
This whole rant you are on is so f*&^in ridiculous as to be comical if it wasn't so sad.
Hell yeah! Lets go back to the old system of the Patroon and the serfs!
The Mill OWNERS and the mill WORKERS who were guaranteed to work themselves to DEATH JUST to live in a F-in SHACK......
Helll YEAH, lets go back to the Landowner/ sharecropper system.........work yourself to DEATH just for the privilege of livin in a shack and givin all but what the company STORE said you OWED for the BEANS you ate last year to the OWNER.
Let's go back to the system of the mine OWNERS and the MINERS...coughin their LUNGS up so the MUCKY mucks could sit up on the hill and look down their NOSES at them and keep them so far in debt to the COMPANY STORE that they NEVER had any HOPE of owning anything of their own.
THEN....the OWNERS.....who are SO much more qualified to VOTE for what is good for their economic SLAVES can vote themselves the laws that keep the workers NOSES down and on the COMPANY grindstone.......You make me sick.
RENTERS produce INCOME for the landlord..........WORKERS produce PRODUCT for the OWNER.........they have every bit as much a right to vote as anybody ELSE in THIS country buddy....
But Pam, if you just deny that those things ever happened you'd be right in the main stream. All employers were like parents to their workers, made sure they lived a comfortable middle class life style before they took a penny in profit...Yeah, right! There actually were some very kind employee giants. Very rare indeed.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 15, 2010, 03:05:31 PM
Let's see now, we started out talking about "producer" rather than "consumers" and voting, and I'm still not sure I understand . When my Uncle Bill (Billy) still had working oil wells, there came a time when he had others hold the mineral leases and he, then we, got royalty checks for the oil. We still owned the land. So we could vote but the leaser couldn't? Around here we have lots of people who rent land to run cattle on and rent land for crops too. According to you they produce nothing and wouldn't be allowed to vote, but the land owner gets to vote who produced nothing but a rental check. Surely that's not what you meant. People who work produce something, even if it is information. They are paid to do it and then they can be consumers with the money they earned. Even baby sitters and lifeguards produce something. It's called a safe environment.
First of all, your combigning two different topics. First topic was about property owners being the ones to vote. Second topic was all people got 1 vote but the ones who pay 5k increments get a vote for every 5k.
Third, a producer is someone who creates jobs, wealth. a consumer is a individual who works for a producer. A business owner would be a producer.
QuoteEducation? We do charge people! It's called school taxes and one of the things I taught every class I ever had, even the third graders, was how their education was being paid for and why they shouldn't waste it.
Not at all accurate. The ones who pay the taxes aka property owners, pay the school costs. Virtually no one that lives in a rental pays school tax. So their kids pay go free.
QuoteI was lucky enough to have 'Daddy's money" and didn't have to work during high school or college, but I sure didn't party myself into poor grades either. I was too busy with the band and other activities, and extra classes, and my parents just wouldn't have put up with it. They knew what I was capable of and expected me to live up to it.
And your older. You grew up in a time where kids respected their parents and the money it took to educate. Todays kids think their entitled to it.
QuoteA few I knew were dyslexic or ADD and came from little schools that simply didn't have the resources for learning disabilities...Like the poor schools that you yourself mentioned. For a good many, English was a second language and remedial classes were welcomed.
I'm ADHD, and never had assistance. No special classes, no special training, no drugs either. And i didn't need remedial courses, i hold a 4.0 AS degree in electroncis, and 3.8 AS deg in Horticulture, I have the equivalence of a MA deg in experience in IT industry. Never had a dimes worth of help to obtain it either.
QuoteThen comes sophomore year and all bets are off. The classes are much tougher and they goof, they're gone.( Much to the shock to the parent's pocketbook.) Colleges now, for the most part, don't care how many years it takes a student to finish. 4 years? 5 or 6? Flunk out? Take more remedial classes and come back. You are a customer, not just a student.$$$$$$ Eventually most kids settle down and get to studying. It's the parents who keep paying, and paying. Then the #10 boot is appropriate!
Well then you agree with me. Go to any college campus across the country. In the schools i attended, to get my degree, My electronics school started out with 45 in the class. The day the final exam was taken, for the entire course, 5 were left in the class. THe rest dropped. 2 of us passed the exam, 2 failed and one was caught cheating on the exam and thrown out.
Second school i started out with 35 in the class, by the second semester, we were down to 8 in the class. AND in both schools, the ones that were left to the end, were folks over 35. The rest were usually 18 -21.
I certainly don't disagree with you on everything, never did.
As far as renters, the property owner pays the school tax...been there done that. We owned a second home for a couple of years and rented it out. Part of the rent they paid to me each month went to the taxes I payed on the house. That's how I figured out how much to charge. My usual expenses plus a profit line. Right now that house would rent for about $1,200.00/month. We sold it and took the capital gains. I would assume apartment buildings are the same way. The rent each month would include the rent, and the landlord's taxes, including school taxes, but I can't swear to it. It would also include some utilities. A separate security deposit is usual here too. Ok, I think I figured out what you mean. You are handing the reins of this country back to big business. That may or may not be a good idea, but it does sound very Republican to me. You do know there are large businesses that are structured so they pay almost no taxes at all.
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 05, 2010, 09:45:30 PM
The racial troubles in the South were initiated by the north/yankees. Folks got along
pretty good among themselves in the South until the yankees took control in 1865.
After the WBTS, the yankees separated the whites and blacks and the yankees stirred
hatred between them.
Of course, since then, the gov't schools have not taught the truths to whites and blacks.
How else can they justify Lincoln's war?
"Lincoln's War" wasn't about abolishing slavery...That was a side issue that was brought to the fore...The true issue was whether or not the South had the right to seccede from the Union.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 16, 2010, 07:03:22 PM
I certainly don't disagree with you on everything, never did.
As far as renters, the property owner pays the school tax...been there done that. We owned a second home for a couple of years and rented it out. Part of the rent they paid to me each month went to the taxes I payed on the house. That's how I figured out how much to charge. My usual expenses plus a profit line. Right now that house would rent for about $1,200.00/month. We sold it and took the capital gains. I would assume apartment buildings are the same way. The rent each month would include the rent, and the landlord's taxes, including school taxes, but I can't swear to it. It would also include some utilities. A separate security deposit is usual here too. Ok, I think I figured out what you mean. You are handing the reins of this country back to big business. That may or may not be a good idea, but it does sound very Republican to me. You do know there are large businesses that are structured so they pay almost no taxes at all.
You see, the problem today is that too many folks that don't make money, vote themselves checks out of other peoples pockets. 50% of this country pays no tax. Now why?? 6% and thats the rich folks, the big businesses, pay over 60% of all the taxes, and the other 44% pay the rest.
Not a very equitable deal.
The South was invaded by the north and the South defended itself against the Federal empire building agenda.
The Southerners stood by the Founding Fathers who authored the Constitution.
The northern aggression was the cause of the War, but you will not find that to be taught in the Federal schools.
The gov't school agenda is to protect and increase the flow of money to Gov't schools and to advance Federalism.