Discussion:
"Black poverty is the result of 30 years of misguided welfare rather than racism"
(too old to reply)
blargh
2005-09-11 20:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Ha! It should read, "What white do-gooders did TO black America." Seems I
remember something about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions
____________________________________

Focus: White do-gooders did for black America

John McWhorter
September 11, 2005

Black poverty is the result of 30 years of misguided welfare rather than
racism, says John McWhorter

As it quickly became clear that there was a certain demographic skew among
the people stranded in New Orleans, journalists began intoning that
Hurricane Katrina had stripped bare the continuing racial inequity in
America.

The extent to which this was hidden is unclear, actually. An awareness that
a tragic disproportion of black Americans are poor has been a hallmark of
civic awareness among educated Americans for 40 years now.

The problem is less a lack of awareness than a lack of understanding. The
publicly sanctioned take is that "white supremacy" is why 80% of New Orleans
's poor people are black. The civics lesson, we are to think, is that the
civil rights revolution left a job undone in an America still hostile to
black advancement.

In fact, white America does remain morally culpable - but because white
leftists in the late 1960s, in the name of enlightenment and benevolence,
encouraged the worst in human nature among blacks and even fostered it in
legislation. The hordes of poor blacks stuck in the Superdome last week
wound up there not because the White Man barred them from doing better, but
because certain tragically influential White Men destroyed the fragile but
lasting survival skills poor black communities had maintained since the end
of slavery.

Few thinking people regret the flower children's opposition to the Vietnam
war, sexism and racial discrimination. But these advances also spelt the
demise of old standards of responsibility. Taught that criminality and
violence must be judged in proportion to the extent to which poverty and
discrimination have coloured one's existence, the enlightened white person
saw black violence as "understandable".

This meant a largely theatrical black separatist ideology, drastically short
on constructive aims, had a public sanction that it had never had before.
Hating whitey for its own sake now had an ear among the influential and
quickly became the word on the street.

There was a new sense that the disadvantages of being black gave one a pass
on civility - or even achievement: this was when black teens started teasing
black nerds for "acting white".

Behaviour that most of a black community would have condemned as
counterproductive started to seem normal. Through the late 1960s blacks
burnt down their own neighbourhoods as gestures of being "fed up". But
blacks had been "fed up" for centuries: why were these the first riots
initiated by blacks rather than white thugs - when the economy was flush and
employment opportunities were opening up as never before? Because the
culture had changed, in ways that hindered too many blacks from taking
advantage of the civil rights revolution. Meanwhile, the most grievous
result of the new consensus was black American history's most under-reported
event, the expansion of welfare. Until now, welfare had been a pittance
intended for widows, unavailable as long as the father of one's children was
able-bodied and accounted for, and granted for as little time as possible.

In 1966, however, a group of white academics in New York developed a plan to
bring as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible. Across the country,
poor blacks especially were taught to apply for living on the dole even when
they had been working for a living, and by 1970 there were 169% more people
on welfare nationwide than in 1960.

This was the first time that whites or blacks had taught black people not to
work as a form of civil rights. Politicians and bureaucrats jumped on the
new opportunity for political patronage and votes, and welfare quickly
became a programme that essentially paid young women to have children.

Only in 1996 was welfare limited to five years and focused on training for
work. But by then generations of poor blacks had grown up in neighbourhoods
where there was no requirement that fathers support their children. Few grew
up watching their primary parent work for a living. Most people paid nominal
subsidies as rent and were thus less inclined to treat their living spaces
well.

The multigenerational welfare family with grandmothers in their forties
became typical: young women had babies in their teens because there was no
reason not to with welfare waiting to pick up the tab.

This is the hell that most of the people in the Superdome either lived in or
knew at close hand, and none of them could help being stamped by it. Welfare
reform was only nine years ago. The women now past the five-year cap are
mostly struggling in dead-end jobs. This is better than living on the dole.
But these women are weighed down by too many kids created under the old
regime to have the time or energy to get the education to get beyond where
they are. Poor black neighbourhoods are not what they were at the height of
the crack epidemic in the 1980s, but they are still a crying shame.

The poor black America that welfare expansion created in 1966 is still with
us. Poor young blacks have never known anything else. People as old as 50
have only vague memories of life before it. For 30 years this was a world
within a world, as is made clear from how often the Katrina refugees mention
it is the first time they have ever left New Orleans.

What Katrina stripped bare, then, was not white supremacy, but that culture
matters - even if what created the culture was misguided white benevolence.
Social scientists neglect that before the 1960s poor blacks knew plenty of
economic downturns and plenty more racism.

But before the 1960s the kinds of behaviour so common among the blacks
stranded in the Superdome, possibly including multiple rapes, was a fringe
phenomenon. Only after the 1960s did it become a community norm.
Wise people tell us that poor blacks in New Orleans went to rack and ruin
when low-skill industrial jobs left the city centre, a common argument about
cities nationwide. But in cities like Indianapolis where the factories
largely stayed close, the same degradation began - starting in the late
1960s.

Wise people tell us that housing projects destroyed poor black communities
by concentrating too many poor people in one place. But in city after city,
these projects were peaceful places until welfare recipients were allowed to
move in in large numbers.

All indications are that the reform of welfare in 1996 is bearing fruit in
terms of income and the life conditions of children. Hopefully, legions of
poor black people who return to New Orleans will take advantage of the job
opportunities that rebuilding a city will offer. But what we should all
remember from Katrina is a tragic close-up of a group of people staggering
after, first, a hideous natural disaster but, ultimately, an equally hideous
sociological disaster of 40 years ago.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1774271_1,00.html
Cybertron
2005-09-15 12:23:05 UTC
Permalink
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.

Instead of the idiotic blame game and calls for hearings after the storm,
the focus should have been directed at how the welfare system in this
country has totally gotten out of hand.

There's an article in the Baltimore Sun today about how the city of Baton
Rouge is regretting taking in so many welfare people.Of course their main
concern is the rise in crime. This segways the story from earlier this week
that the bridge out of New Orleans was closed down before the storm,
because the communties on the other side didn't want a huge influx of
niggers flooding their towns.

A lot of these areas are loaded with white liberals as well.Just because
the love the reliable nigger vote, doesn't mean they want a black welfare
family living next door.

Then I saw another story about the few thousand welfare niggers that were
transported to Utah which has less than 1% of it's population being
black.Most are living in the barracks at a Guard outpost there.Most of them
don't want to be there. Instead of looking at it as an oppurtunity for
starting over in crime free areas and decent housing they would rather go
back to a crime infested area such as New Orleans and pick up their old
lifestyle of getting their welfare checks.Living off the government is so
ingrained in their mentality,the thought of having to be self sufficent
just blows their minds.
Post by blargh
Ha! It should read, "What white do-gooders did TO black America." Seems
I remember something about the road to Hell being paved with good
intentions ____________________________________
Focus: White do-gooders did for black America
John McWhorter
September 11, 2005
Black poverty is the result of 30 years of misguided welfare rather than
racism, says John McWhorter
As it quickly became clear that there was a certain demographic skew
among the people stranded in New Orleans, journalists began intoning that
Hurricane Katrina had stripped bare the continuing racial inequity in
America.
The extent to which this was hidden is unclear, actually. An awareness
that a tragic disproportion of black Americans are poor has been a
hallmark of civic awareness among educated Americans for 40 years now.
The problem is less a lack of awareness than a lack of understanding. The
publicly sanctioned take is that "white supremacy" is why 80% of New
Orleans 's poor people are black. The civics lesson, we are to think, is
that the civil rights revolution left a job undone in an America still
hostile to black advancement.
In fact, white America does remain morally culpable - but because white
leftists in the late 1960s, in the name of enlightenment and benevolence,
encouraged the worst in human nature among blacks and even fostered it in
legislation. The hordes of poor blacks stuck in the Superdome last week
wound up there not because the White Man barred them from doing better,
but because certain tragically influential White Men destroyed the
fragile but lasting survival skills poor black communities had maintained
since the end of slavery.
Few thinking people regret the flower children's opposition to the
Vietnam war, sexism and racial discrimination. But these advances also
spelt the demise of old standards of responsibility. Taught that
criminality and violence must be judged in proportion to the extent to
which poverty and discrimination have coloured one's existence, the
enlightened white person saw black violence as "understandable".
This meant a largely theatrical black separatist ideology, drastically
short on constructive aims, had a public sanction that it had never had
before. Hating whitey for its own sake now had an ear among the
influential and quickly became the word on the street.
There was a new sense that the disadvantages of being black gave one a
pass on civility - or even achievement: this was when black teens started
teasing black nerds for "acting white".
Behaviour that most of a black community would have condemned as
counterproductive started to seem normal. Through the late 1960s blacks
burnt down their own neighbourhoods as gestures of being "fed up". But
blacks had been "fed up" for centuries: why were these the first riots
initiated by blacks rather than white thugs - when the economy was flush
and employment opportunities were opening up as never before? Because the
culture had changed, in ways that hindered too many blacks from taking
advantage of the civil rights revolution. Meanwhile, the most grievous
result of the new consensus was black American history's most
under-reported event, the expansion of welfare. Until now, welfare had
been a pittance intended for widows, unavailable as long as the father of
one's children was able-bodied and accounted for, and granted for as
little time as possible.
In 1966, however, a group of white academics in New York developed a plan
to bring as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible. Across the
country, poor blacks especially were taught to apply for living on the
dole even when they had been working for a living, and by 1970 there were
169% more people on welfare nationwide than in 1960.
This was the first time that whites or blacks had taught black people not
to work as a form of civil rights. Politicians and bureaucrats jumped on
the new opportunity for political patronage and votes, and welfare
quickly became a programme that essentially paid young women to have
children.
Only in 1996 was welfare limited to five years and focused on training
for work. But by then generations of poor blacks had grown up in
neighbourhoods where there was no requirement that fathers support their
children. Few grew up watching their primary parent work for a living.
Most people paid nominal subsidies as rent and were thus less inclined to
treat their living spaces well.
The multigenerational welfare family with grandmothers in their forties
became typical: young women had babies in their teens because there was
no reason not to with welfare waiting to pick up the tab.
This is the hell that most of the people in the Superdome either lived in
or knew at close hand, and none of them could help being stamped by it.
Welfare reform was only nine years ago. The women now past the five-year
cap are mostly struggling in dead-end jobs. This is better than living on
the dole. But these women are weighed down by too many kids created under
the old regime to have the time or energy to get the education to get
beyond where they are. Poor black neighbourhoods are not what they were
at the height of the crack epidemic in the 1980s, but they are still a
crying shame.
The poor black America that welfare expansion created in 1966 is still
with us. Poor young blacks have never known anything else. People as old
as 50 have only vague memories of life before it. For 30 years this was a
world within a world, as is made clear from how often the Katrina
refugees mention it is the first time they have ever left New Orleans.
What Katrina stripped bare, then, was not white supremacy, but that
culture matters - even if what created the culture was misguided white
benevolence. Social scientists neglect that before the 1960s poor blacks
knew plenty of economic downturns and plenty more racism.
But before the 1960s the kinds of behaviour so common among the blacks
stranded in the Superdome, possibly including multiple rapes, was a
fringe phenomenon. Only after the 1960s did it become a community norm.
Wise people tell us that poor blacks in New Orleans went to rack and ruin
when low-skill industrial jobs left the city centre, a common argument
about cities nationwide. But in cities like Indianapolis where the
factories largely stayed close, the same degradation began - starting in
the late 1960s.
Wise people tell us that housing projects destroyed poor black
communities by concentrating too many poor people in one place. But in
city after city, these projects were peaceful places until welfare
recipients were allowed to move in in large numbers.
All indications are that the reform of welfare in 1996 is bearing fruit
in terms of income and the life conditions of children. Hopefully,
legions of poor black people who return to New Orleans will take
advantage of the job opportunities that rebuilding a city will offer. But
what we should all remember from Katrina is a tragic close-up of a group
of people staggering after, first, a hideous natural disaster but,
ultimately, an equally hideous sociological disaster of 40 years ago.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1774271_1,00.html
Karl
2005-09-15 13:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
It's from The Times, a Murdoch paper, which takes the American,
Republican viewpoint of its owner. So it's not a typical UK point of
view at all - it's taken right out of Republican propaganda.

And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?

Any truly British viewpoint would note that:

a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here

Therefore...

c) A big and well-funded welfare state can eliminate the worst forms of
poverty from society
S***@e-mailanywhere.com
2005-09-15 17:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karl
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
It's from The Times, a Murdoch paper, which takes the American,
Republican viewpoint of its owner. So it's not a typical UK point of
view at all - it's taken right out of Republican propaganda.
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here
Therefore...
c) A big and well-funded welfare state can eliminate the worst forms of
poverty from society
Quite. The welfare state was constructed to protect the weakest within
our society and most folk support regulated use of it. However the
abuse of it and the way it attracts unwanted criminal immigrants is a
greater issue of far more interest to the average liberal Brit. Take a
quick look at this unbiased report from the professionals:

State Of the Nation
10 April 2005

In February, the single most important issue in the minds of nearly a
quarter (23%) of the British nation was immigration and asylum seekers,
nearly double the percentage who expressed concern about either the
state of the nation's health care (13%) or Iraq, terrorism and the
nation's defence (13%).

What was different about February and the month before was that the
Conservative Party under party leader Michael Howard and shadow home
secretary David Davis tapped the nerve of the nation on this issue. In
January, 13 percent had spontaneously nominated immigration as the
single most important issue facing the country and Iraq led the poll at
18 percent.

This concern about immigration is reflected in the latest MORI poll
conducted exclusively for the Observer over the past three days. Seven
people in ten believe that laws on immigration should be much tougher
(58%) or even that immigration should be stopped altogether (11%).

Among working class people the figure rises to eight in ten, as three
in four of those 55 and over. That nearly nine in ten Tories support
harsher laws isn't surprising. But that six in ten Labour supporters
also want rules tightened is impacting on Labour's campaign. Labour's
recent noises show both their reaction to the country's mood and to its
electoral importance as we get into the real campaign.

Two people in three acknowledge that immigrants make Britain more open
to new ideas and culture, but their contribution to the country's
economy is less well recognised, as fewer than half, 45 percent, say
that immigration is general good for the economy, and a third believe
that immigrants increase crime rates.

The government's tightening up on suspected terrorists is widely
supported. When asked "There are differing views about the balance
between guaranteeing civil liberties and the need to protect the
country against terrorism", three people in four, 74 percent, believe
it is acceptable for British authorities to place suspected terrorists
under house arrest, and only one in five say they would find it
unacceptable, over half, 55 percent, to detain suspected terrorists
without trial, and as many as one in five, 19 percent, to allow
evidence obtained abroad by the use of torture to be used in British
courts.

More of the younger age group, 18-34, are supportive of house arrest
(82 percent v. 74 percent) and torture-based evidence (27 percent v. 19
percent) than the average.

Yet it would be wrong to describe the state of the nation as illiberal.
While many people are concerned about immigration and terrorism, and
want the government to act as well as talk tough, the British are
essentially supportive of the principles of the welfare state.

Between 1992 and 1997, literally scores of BBC and other broadcasters
repeated the Tory mantra that people may tell pollsters they are in
favour of higher taxes, but they don't vote that way on Election Day.
In 1997, MORI asked in the first week of the campaign if they expected
Labour, if elected, to put up their taxes, and despite Labour's
promises not to do so, 63 percent said they thought Labour would. And
in 2001, the public certainly recognised that Labour had put up their
taxes, and even expected them to do so again, and gave them another
landslide.

There is much debate in the Tory party about the strength of the tax
issue on the election. A third of the public say that tax is an issue
which will be one of the two or three issues on which will help to
determine how they will vote. Over half say this of health care.

When asked to choose between cutting taxes even if it means some
reduction in government services, such as health care, education and
welfare, and extending them even if it means an increase in taxes, in
this poll, over half, 56 percent, say they would prefer an extension of
services, while only 15 percent wish to see taxes cut with a cut in
services.

When asked specifically about redistribution of wealth, for support or
opposition the taxes being used to narrow the gap between the rich and
the poor, more than twice as many, 59 percent, support this use of
their taxes while a quarter say they would oppose it. Perhaps
surprisingly, two thirds of those in the professional and managerial
class are willing to support wealth redistribution, the highest level
of support in society.

One reason for this apparent contradiction between financial
self-interest and support for society is that most people, 76 percent,
say they are satisfied with their standard of living from their being
able to make personal decisions on the things they can buy and do,
their housing, furniture, food, cars, recreation and travel, which go
to make up their standard of living within their control.

Among ABs, the same managers and professionals, 85 percent say they are
satisfied with their own financial circumstances. Over a third in fact,
35 percent, say they are very satisfied.

The level of the nation's debt is of concern to the Treasury and to the
City, but three quarters of the nation seem relaxed about it. Some 44
percent say they have no debt, and another third, 32 percent, say that
while they do borrow, their current level of borrowing is not a
problem. One person in seven however, admits they do worry occasionally
about their level of borrowing, and to 7 percent, worry most of the
time. These are mostly among the young (11%), and people renting (12%).

Much is made of the threats of modern life to a good work/life balance.
Seven in ten however agree that they feel they have a good work/life
balance. Those who feel this is not the case are more in the middle age
group, middle classes, and especially those who work part time

http://www.mori.com/pubinfo/rmw/state-of-the-nation.shtml
Way Back Jack
2005-09-15 17:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karl
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
Easy, America wasn't around 400 years ago dumbass.

She came into being in 1776.

Don't blame the history of poverty on America.

Also, the current black/white poverty ratio is 2.3 to 1.

White folks are impoverished too.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from poverty.
Post by Karl
a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here
Therefore...
c) A big and well-funded welfare state can eliminate the worst forms of
poverty from society
Yeah, but Britain is nearly communist. What's the Beatles' tax rate:
98%?
dratster
2005-09-17 00:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Way Back Jack
Post by Karl
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
Easy, America wasn't around 400 years ago dumbass.
She came into being in 1776.
Sorry nitwit, perhaps the "United States" of America was formed at that
time - tho in truth it wasn't until 1788 when we adopted the
Constitution of the United States in place of the of Articles of
Confederation.

However, America has been around since the 1500's...

The rest of your reply is as silly as the first part...

ciao,
dratster
Way Back Jack
2005-09-17 10:36:05 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Sep 2005 17:07:19 -0700, "dratster"
Post by dratster
Post by Way Back Jack
Post by Karl
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
Easy, America wasn't around 400 years ago dumbass.
She came into being in 1776.
Sorry nitwit, perhaps the "United States" of America was formed at that
time - tho in truth it wasn't until 1788 when we adopted the
Constitution of the United States in place of the of Articles of
Confederation.
However, America has been around since the 1500's...
The rest of your reply is as silly as the first part...
Of course "The Americas" existed prior to 1776, so did Egypt,
Antarctica, France ..... Get muh drift? With the Constitution came
equality. As early as 1800 there were abolitionst movements and
slavery was abolished 89 years after "America" came into being. Get
o9ff your crutch and learn:


Myth #2

American slavery (white-on-black) is uniquely wicked in world history


One of the most productive effects of David Horowitz’s 2001 campaign
against reparations for slavery was his publicizing some inconvenient
facts about the institution. Slavery was a universal institution first
stopped by whites, and blacks who came to America were already slaves
of Arabs or other blacks. While every American child learns about
white-on-black slavery, other forms of slavery that are more prevalent
and still practiced are ignored. In fact, black-on-black and
Arab-on-black slavery still exists today in parts of Africa such as
the Sudan and Mauritania and in the black Caribbean nation of Haiti.







A few proponents of reparations tried to answer Horowtiz by stating
that African slavery was benign compared to Western slavery. Typical
of this line of thought is the following passage from Randall
Robinson’s reparations manifesto, The Debt (2000): “While King Affonso
[of Kongo] was no stranger to slavery, which was practiced throughout
most of the known world, he had understood slavery as a condition
befalling prisoners of war, criminals, and debtors, out of which
slaves could earn, or even marry, their way. This was nothing like
seeing this wholly new and brutal commercial practice of slavery where
tens of thousands of his subjects were dragged off in chains.”







Dorothy Benton-Lewis, head of the National Coalition for Reparations
against Blacks, claims that only white slavers were racist and brutal:
“It is American slavery that put a color on slavery. And American
slavery is not like the slavery of Africa or ancient times. This was
dehumanizing, brutal and barbaric slavery that subjugated people and
turned them into a profit.”







The claims of Robinson and Benton-Lewis are widely believed but are
simply not true. Orlando Patterson studied 55 slave societies for his
1982 book Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (1982). He
writes:







“It has often been remarked that slavery in the Americas is unique in
the primary role of race as a factor in determining the condition and
treatment of slaves. This statement betrays an appalling ignorance of
the comparative data on slave societies. . . . Throughout the Islamic
world, for instance, race was a vital issue. The light-skinned Tuareg
and related groups had decidedly racist attitudes towards the Negroes
they conquered. Throughout the Islamic empires, European and Turkish
slaves were treated quite differently from slaves south of the Sahara
Desert. . . . Slavery [in Africa] was more than simply
“subordination”; it was considered a degraded condition, reinforced by
racist attitudes among the Arab slave owners.”







Writing on African slavery before 1600, the historian Paul Lovejoy
notes: “For those who were enslaved, the dangers involved forced
marches, inadequate food, sexual abuse, and death on the road.”







In his book on the reparations battle, Uncivil Wars (2002) Horowitz
adds:







“In fact Africa’s internal slave trade, which did not involve the
United States or any European power, not only extended over the entire
500 years mentioned by Robinson, but also preceded it by nearly 1,000
years. In the period between 650 and 1600, before any Western
involvement, somewhere between 3 million and 10 million Africans were
bought by Muslim slavers for use in Saharan societies and in the trade
in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea. By contrast, the enslavement of
blacks in the United States lasted 89 years, from 1776 until 1865. The
combined slave trade to the British colonies in North America and
later to the United States accounted for less than 3 percent of the
global trade in African slaves. The total number of slaves imported to
North America was 800,000, less than the slave trade to the island of
Cuba alone. If the internal African slave trade-which began in the
seventh century and persists to this day in the Sudan, Mauritania and
other sub-Saharan states-is taken into account, the responsibility of
American traders shrinks to a fraction of 1 percent of the slavery
problem.”







African tribes were some of the fiercest defenders of slavery when
whites tried to outlaw the practice in the 19th century. Blacks in
present-day Ghana rioted against the British as they destroyed the
slave ports along Africa’s western coast. In 1808, the King of Bonny
(now Nigeria) told the British: “You’re country, however great, can
never stop a trade ordained by God himself.”







One of America’s most famous black novelists, Zora Neale Hurston had a
very different perspective on slavery than today’s reparations
activists: “The white people held my people in slavery here in
America. They bought us, it is true, and exploited us. But the
inescapable fact that stuck in my craw was [that] my people had sold
me. … My own people had exterminated whole nations and tore families
apart for profit before the strangers got their chance at a cut. It
was a sobering thought. It impressed upon me the universal nature of
greed and glory."







Unfortunately, school children are more likely to get the distorted
Randall Robinson version of slavery than they are to get the more
accurate and poetic version put forward by Zora Neale Hurston.
Ironically, slavery is making a return to America primarily due to
African immigrants bringing their traditional customs with them. In
the last year alone, several immigrants from Cameroon have been
sentenced for keeping other Cameroonians as slaves. In one
particularly gruesome case, African immigrants Louisa Satia and Kevin
Nanji were sentenced to nine years in prison for beating, raping and
torturing their teenage slave. African slavery is becoming so
commonplace in America that the Attorney General has set up something
called the Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force
to help put a stop to it.
dratster
2005-09-17 11:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Way Back Jack
On 16 Sep 2005 17:07:19 -0700, "dratster"
Of course "The Americas" existed prior to 1776, so did Egypt,
Antarctica, France ..... Get muh drift?
No, nitwit, "America" existed many years before the "United States of
America".
Post by Way Back Jack
With the Constitution came equality.
Yes, eventually... But for "89" years, if you were not a White
land-owning male, you were NOT equal under the law. For another 55
years if you were not a male, you did NOT have the right to vote.

In some areas in the South Blacks had no guaranteed vote until 1964,
and at times this right had to be enforced at gunpoint from federal
soldiers.

It wasn't until 1972 that the right for male and females to marry
regardless of their race and ethnicity was guaranteed. It took a
Virginia couple (The "Lovings" - A White male and Black female with a
small baby) being arrested for miscegnation for the Supreme Court to
find such a law unconstititional. It wasn't until 1992 that all laws
regarding this were struck down from every state.

So, your statements, are just ignorant and without merit.

Now, if you have the ability, why don't you say in your own words, what
you think Horowitz is writing...

ciao,
dratster

But it took the institution of the 13th and 14th Amendments


As early as 1800 there were abolitionst movements and
Post by Way Back Jack
slavery was abolished 89 years after "America" came into being. Get
Myth #2
American slavery (white-on-black) is uniquely wicked in world history
One of the most productive effects of David Horowitz's 2001 campaign
against reparations for slavery was his publicizing some inconvenient
facts about the institution. Slavery was a universal institution first
stopped by whites, and blacks who came to America were already slaves
of Arabs or other blacks. While every American child learns about
white-on-black slavery, other forms of slavery that are more prevalent
and still practiced are ignored. In fact, black-on-black and
Arab-on-black slavery still exists today in parts of Africa such as
the Sudan and Mauritania and in the black Caribbean nation of Haiti.
A few proponents of reparations tried to answer Horowtiz by stating
that African slavery was benign compared to Western slavery. Typical
of this line of thought is the following passage from Randall
Robinson's reparations manifesto, The Debt (2000): "While King Affonso
[of Kongo] was no stranger to slavery, which was practiced throughout
most of the known world, he had understood slavery as a condition
befalling prisoners of war, criminals, and debtors, out of which
slaves could earn, or even marry, their way. This was nothing like
seeing this wholly new and brutal commercial practice of slavery where
tens of thousands of his subjects were dragged off in chains."
Dorothy Benton-Lewis, head of the National Coalition for Reparations
"It is American slavery that put a color on slavery. And American
slavery is not like the slavery of Africa or ancient times. This was
dehumanizing, brutal and barbaric slavery that subjugated people and
turned them into a profit."
The claims of Robinson and Benton-Lewis are widely believed but are
simply not true. Orlando Patterson studied 55 slave societies for his
1982 book Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (1982). He
"It has often been remarked that slavery in the Americas is unique in
the primary role of race as a factor in determining the condition and
treatment of slaves. This statement betrays an appalling ignorance of
the comparative data on slave societies. . . . Throughout the Islamic
world, for instance, race was a vital issue. The light-skinned Tuareg
and related groups had decidedly racist attitudes towards the Negroes
they conquered. Throughout the Islamic empires, European and Turkish
slaves were treated quite differently from slaves south of the Sahara
Desert. . . . Slavery [in Africa] was more than simply
"subordination"; it was considered a degraded condition, reinforced by
racist attitudes among the Arab slave owners."
Writing on African slavery before 1600, the historian Paul Lovejoy
notes: "For those who were enslaved, the dangers involved forced
marches, inadequate food, sexual abuse, and death on the road."
In his book on the reparations battle, Uncivil Wars (2002) Horowitz
"In fact Africa's internal slave trade, which did not involve the
United States or any European power, not only extended over the entire
500 years mentioned by Robinson, but also preceded it by nearly 1,000
years. In the period between 650 and 1600, before any Western
involvement, somewhere between 3 million and 10 million Africans were
bought by Muslim slavers for use in Saharan societies and in the trade
in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea. By contrast, the enslavement of
blacks in the United States lasted 89 years, from 1776 until 1865. The
combined slave trade to the British colonies in North America and
later to the United States accounted for less than 3 percent of the
global trade in African slaves. The total number of slaves imported to
North America was 800,000, less than the slave trade to the island of
Cuba alone. If the internal African slave trade-which began in the
seventh century and persists to this day in the Sudan, Mauritania and
other sub-Saharan states-is taken into account, the responsibility of
American traders shrinks to a fraction of 1 percent of the slavery
problem."
African tribes were some of the fiercest defenders of slavery when
whites tried to outlaw the practice in the 19th century. Blacks in
present-day Ghana rioted against the British as they destroyed the
slave ports along Africa's western coast. In 1808, the King of Bonny
(now Nigeria) told the British: "You're country, however great, can
never stop a trade ordained by God himself."
One of America's most famous black novelists, Zora Neale Hurston had a
very different perspective on slavery than today's reparations
activists: "The white people held my people in slavery here in
America. They bought us, it is true, and exploited us. But the
inescapable fact that stuck in my craw was [that] my people had sold
me. ... My own people had exterminated whole nations and tore families
apart for profit before the strangers got their chance at a cut. It
was a sobering thought. It impressed upon me the universal nature of
greed and glory."
Unfortunately, school children are more likely to get the distorted
Randall Robinson version of slavery than they are to get the more
accurate and poetic version put forward by Zora Neale Hurston.
Ironically, slavery is making a return to America primarily due to
African immigrants bringing their traditional customs with them. In
the last year alone, several immigrants from Cameroon have been
sentenced for keeping other Cameroonians as slaves. In one
particularly gruesome case, African immigrants Louisa Satia and Kevin
Nanji were sentenced to nine years in prison for beating, raping and
torturing their teenage slave. African slavery is becoming so
commonplace in America that the Attorney General has set up something
called the Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force
to help put a stop to it.
Way Back Jack
2005-09-17 11:43:08 UTC
Permalink
I will gladly explain what Horowitz wrote. Which particular passages
are giving you trouble?

At any rate, your ancestors were enslaved. Mine were driven from
their home county via oppression and when they arrived here 50 years
after your slavery ended, they were treated about the same as blacks
were: "Go live among your own kind and don't apply for any jobs
except to unload ships. And while you're at it, learn English."

If not for the enslavement of your ancestors, and the oppression of
mine, you may be posting from Zimbabwe and I might be posting from
Lublin, Poland.

I'd say that we lucked out.
____________




On 17 Sep 2005 04:26:52 -0700, "dratster"
Post by dratster
Post by Way Back Jack
On 16 Sep 2005 17:07:19 -0700, "dratster"
Of course "The Americas" existed prior to 1776, so did Egypt,
Antarctica, France ..... Get muh drift?
No, nitwit, "America" existed many years before the "United States of
America".
Post by Way Back Jack
With the Constitution came equality.
Yes, eventually... But for "89" years, if you were not a White
land-owning male, you were NOT equal under the law. For another 55
years if you were not a male, you did NOT have the right to vote.
In some areas in the South Blacks had no guaranteed vote until 1964,
and at times this right had to be enforced at gunpoint from federal
soldiers.
It wasn't until 1972 that the right for male and females to marry
regardless of their race and ethnicity was guaranteed. It took a
Virginia couple (The "Lovings" - A White male and Black female with a
small baby) being arrested for miscegnation for the Supreme Court to
find such a law unconstititional. It wasn't until 1992 that all laws
regarding this were struck down from every state.
So, your statements, are just ignorant and without merit.
Now, if you have the ability, why don't you say in your own words, what
you think Horowitz is writing...
ciao,
dratster
But it took the institution of the 13th and 14th Amendments
As early as 1800 there were abolitionst movements and
Post by Way Back Jack
slavery was abolished 89 years after "America" came into being. Get
Myth #2
American slavery (white-on-black) is uniquely wicked in world history
One of the most productive effects of David Horowitz's 2001 campaign
against reparations for slavery was his publicizing some inconvenient
facts about the institution. Slavery was a universal institution first
stopped by whites, and blacks who came to America were already slaves
of Arabs or other blacks. While every American child learns about
white-on-black slavery, other forms of slavery that are more prevalent
and still practiced are ignored. In fact, black-on-black and
Arab-on-black slavery still exists today in parts of Africa such as
the Sudan and Mauritania and in the black Caribbean nation of Haiti.
A few proponents of reparations tried to answer Horowtiz by stating
that African slavery was benign compared to Western slavery. Typical
of this line of thought is the following passage from Randall
Robinson's reparations manifesto, The Debt (2000): "While King Affonso
[of Kongo] was no stranger to slavery, which was practiced throughout
most of the known world, he had understood slavery as a condition
befalling prisoners of war, criminals, and debtors, out of which
slaves could earn, or even marry, their way. This was nothing like
seeing this wholly new and brutal commercial practice of slavery where
tens of thousands of his subjects were dragged off in chains."
Dorothy Benton-Lewis, head of the National Coalition for Reparations
"It is American slavery that put a color on slavery. And American
slavery is not like the slavery of Africa or ancient times. This was
dehumanizing, brutal and barbaric slavery that subjugated people and
turned them into a profit."
The claims of Robinson and Benton-Lewis are widely believed but are
simply not true. Orlando Patterson studied 55 slave societies for his
1982 book Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (1982). He
"It has often been remarked that slavery in the Americas is unique in
the primary role of race as a factor in determining the condition and
treatment of slaves. This statement betrays an appalling ignorance of
the comparative data on slave societies. . . . Throughout the Islamic
world, for instance, race was a vital issue. The light-skinned Tuareg
and related groups had decidedly racist attitudes towards the Negroes
they conquered. Throughout the Islamic empires, European and Turkish
slaves were treated quite differently from slaves south of the Sahara
Desert. . . . Slavery [in Africa] was more than simply
"subordination"; it was considered a degraded condition, reinforced by
racist attitudes among the Arab slave owners."
Writing on African slavery before 1600, the historian Paul Lovejoy
notes: "For those who were enslaved, the dangers involved forced
marches, inadequate food, sexual abuse, and death on the road."
In his book on the reparations battle, Uncivil Wars (2002) Horowitz
"In fact Africa's internal slave trade, which did not involve the
United States or any European power, not only extended over the entire
500 years mentioned by Robinson, but also preceded it by nearly 1,000
years. In the period between 650 and 1600, before any Western
involvement, somewhere between 3 million and 10 million Africans were
bought by Muslim slavers for use in Saharan societies and in the trade
in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea. By contrast, the enslavement of
blacks in the United States lasted 89 years, from 1776 until 1865. The
combined slave trade to the British colonies in North America and
later to the United States accounted for less than 3 percent of the
global trade in African slaves. The total number of slaves imported to
North America was 800,000, less than the slave trade to the island of
Cuba alone. If the internal African slave trade-which began in the
seventh century and persists to this day in the Sudan, Mauritania and
other sub-Saharan states-is taken into account, the responsibility of
American traders shrinks to a fraction of 1 percent of the slavery
problem."
African tribes were some of the fiercest defenders of slavery when
whites tried to outlaw the practice in the 19th century. Blacks in
present-day Ghana rioted against the British as they destroyed the
slave ports along Africa's western coast. In 1808, the King of Bonny
(now Nigeria) told the British: "You're country, however great, can
never stop a trade ordained by God himself."
One of America's most famous black novelists, Zora Neale Hurston had a
very different perspective on slavery than today's reparations
activists: "The white people held my people in slavery here in
America. They bought us, it is true, and exploited us. But the
inescapable fact that stuck in my craw was [that] my people had sold
me. ... My own people had exterminated whole nations and tore families
apart for profit before the strangers got their chance at a cut. It
was a sobering thought. It impressed upon me the universal nature of
greed and glory."
Unfortunately, school children are more likely to get the distorted
Randall Robinson version of slavery than they are to get the more
accurate and poetic version put forward by Zora Neale Hurston.
Ironically, slavery is making a return to America primarily due to
African immigrants bringing their traditional customs with them. In
the last year alone, several immigrants from Cameroon have been
sentenced for keeping other Cameroonians as slaves. In one
particularly gruesome case, African immigrants Louisa Satia and Kevin
Nanji were sentenced to nine years in prison for beating, raping and
torturing their teenage slave. African slavery is becoming so
commonplace in America that the Attorney General has set up something
called the Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force
to help put a stop to it.
Mr. Snoopy
2005-09-18 10:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Making excuses for your fellow failures dRat man?
How typical.
Post by dratster
Post by Way Back Jack
Post by Karl
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
Easy, America wasn't around 400 years ago dumbass.
She came into being in 1776.
Sorry nitwit, perhaps the "United States" of America was formed at that
time - tho in truth it wasn't until 1788 when we adopted the
Constitution of the United States in place of the of Articles of
Confederation.
However, America has been around since the 1500's...
The rest of your reply is as silly as the first part...
ciao,
dratster
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Perfesser White
2005-09-16 11:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karl
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
It's from The Times, a Murdoch paper, which takes the American,
Republican viewpoint of its owner. So it's not a typical UK point of
view at all - it's taken right out of Republican propaganda.
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here
Therefore...
c) A big and well-funded welfare state can eliminate the worst forms of
poverty from society
Yo Karl,
I don't want to have to get up in the mornings and go to work anymore.
You can fund my lazy ways, 'kay?

Thanks a bunch,
Perfesser White

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
unknown
2005-09-16 13:45:33 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Sep 2005 11:32:00 GMT, Perfesser White
Post by Perfesser White
Post by Karl
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
It's from The Times, a Murdoch paper, which takes the American,
Republican viewpoint of its owner. So it's not a typical UK point of
view at all - it's taken right out of Republican propaganda.
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here
Therefore...
c) A big and well-funded welfare state can eliminate the worst forms of
poverty from society
Yo Karl,
I don't want to have to get up in the mornings and go to work anymore.
You can fund my lazy ways, 'kay?
Maybe you could get off your racist ass and think about a economy that
gives all those millions of people something to do.
Post by Perfesser White
Thanks a bunch,
Perfesser White
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk

"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
nevermore
2005-09-16 14:09:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:45:33 -0700, 1896 Dead
Post by unknown
On 16 Sep 2005 11:32:00 GMT, Perfesser White
Post by Perfesser White
Post by Karl
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
It's from The Times, a Murdoch paper, which takes the American,
Republican viewpoint of its owner. So it's not a typical UK point of
view at all - it's taken right out of Republican propaganda.
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here
Therefore...
c) A big and well-funded welfare state can eliminate the worst forms of
poverty from society
Yo Karl,
I don't want to have to get up in the mornings and go to work anymore.
You can fund my lazy ways, 'kay?
Maybe you could get off your racist ass and think about a economy that
gives all those millions of people something to do.
So now we have to create jobs for you people that have no education
because they squandered away their educational opportunities?




--
"Glad you don't go along with the "get wrecked every night" philosophy
I did for a while, which led to me never finishing college."
Greywolf Zepp Jamieson Jan 11 1997
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/645945536f518ea8?hl=en&
Way Back Jack
2005-09-16 14:58:43 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:45:33 -0700, 1896 Dead
Post by unknown
On 16 Sep 2005 11:32:00 GMT, Perfesser White
Post by Perfesser White
Post by Karl
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
It's from The Times, a Murdoch paper, which takes the American,
Republican viewpoint of its owner. So it's not a typical UK point of
view at all - it's taken right out of Republican propaganda.
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here
Therefore...
c) A big and well-funded welfare state can eliminate the worst forms of
poverty from society
Yo Karl,
I don't want to have to get up in the mornings and go to work anymore.
You can fund my lazy ways, 'kay?
Maybe you could get off your racist ass and think about a economy that
gives all those millions of people something to do.
Maybe they could get off their lazy asses and stop haing everyone do
their thinking for them.
Byker
2005-09-16 16:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Maybe you could get off your racist ass and think about a economy that
gives all those millions of people something to do.
Having them make little ones out of big ones in the Concrete Congo will give
them plenty to do...
Primus
2005-09-17 16:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by unknown
Maybe you could get off your racist ass and think about a economy that
gives all those millions of people something to do.
Having them make little ones out of big ones in the Concrete Congo will give
them plenty to do...
In a true capitalist society everyone is rich. Bush should stay on as
president for life because that is his goal. Jesus said that we must let the
poor fail on their own so they die.

only the strong & the white survive.
Perfesser White
2005-09-16 17:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On 16 Sep 2005 11:32:00 GMT, Perfesser White
Post by Perfesser White
Post by Karl
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
It's from The Times, a Murdoch paper, which takes the American,
Republican viewpoint of its owner. So it's not a typical UK point of
view at all - it's taken right out of Republican propaganda.
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here
Therefore...
c) A big and well-funded welfare state can eliminate the worst forms of
poverty from society
Yo Karl,
I don't want to have to get up in the mornings and go to work anymore.
You can fund my lazy ways, 'kay?
Maybe you could get off your racist ass and think about a economy that
gives all those millions of people something to do.
Note for Zepp1896: I owe them nothing.

FYI,
Perfesser White

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Way Back Jack
2005-09-16 12:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karl
a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here
What's the mud population in Britain, percentage wise?

Far less than that of the US.

The clash of multiculturalism and your welfare state is in its
infancy.
Mr. Snoopy
2005-09-18 10:53:28 UTC
Permalink
You failed again you worthless KIKE.

YOU are the problem.
Post by Karl
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
It's from The Times, a Murdoch paper, which takes the American,
Republican viewpoint of its owner. So it's not a typical UK point of
view at all - it's taken right out of Republican propaganda.
And it's a bullshit point of view. Black poverty in America goes back
400 years. So if the past 30 are the fault of the welfare state, how do
you explain the other 370?
a) The British welfare state is far bigger and better funded than the
American
b) The kind of poverty seen in New Orleans doesn't exist here
Therefore...
c) A big and well-funded welfare state can eliminate the worst forms of
poverty from society
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
JJ_Red
2005-09-17 22:32:57 UTC
Permalink
YOU ARE SUCH AN IGNORANT SOUL. Did you see that 60% of the people in the TX
dome owned homes? I would imagine they were ghetto homes - the only
structures the NO whites would sell them. And lastly, there are more white
people on welfare than Blacks. An idiot like you, at least, should be able
to figure that one out. If that weren't true, welfare would have been
abolished years ago. Plus there are more whites in the country than Blacks.
So you think the gov would have continued the welfare system just for Black
folks. You dumb ass - wake up!
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
Instead of the idiotic blame game and calls for hearings after the storm,
the focus should have been directed at how the welfare system in this
country has totally gotten out of hand.
There's an article in the Baltimore Sun today about how the city of Baton
Rouge is regretting taking in so many welfare people.Of course their main
concern is the rise in crime. This segways the story from earlier this week
that the bridge out of New Orleans was closed down before the storm,
because the communties on the other side didn't want a huge influx of
niggers flooding their towns.
A lot of these areas are loaded with white liberals as well.Just because
the love the reliable nigger vote, doesn't mean they want a black welfare
family living next door.
Then I saw another story about the few thousand welfare niggers that were
transported to Utah which has less than 1% of it's population being
black.Most are living in the barracks at a Guard outpost there.Most of them
don't want to be there. Instead of looking at it as an oppurtunity for
starting over in crime free areas and decent housing they would rather go
back to a crime infested area such as New Orleans and pick up their old
lifestyle of getting their welfare checks.Living off the government is so
ingrained in their mentality,the thought of having to be self sufficent
just blows their minds.
Post by blargh
Ha! It should read, "What white do-gooders did TO black America." Seems
I remember something about the road to Hell being paved with good
intentions ____________________________________
Focus: White do-gooders did for black America
John McWhorter
September 11, 2005
Black poverty is the result of 30 years of misguided welfare rather than
racism, says John McWhorter
As it quickly became clear that there was a certain demographic skew
among the people stranded in New Orleans, journalists began intoning that
Hurricane Katrina had stripped bare the continuing racial inequity in
America.
The extent to which this was hidden is unclear, actually. An awareness
that a tragic disproportion of black Americans are poor has been a
hallmark of civic awareness among educated Americans for 40 years now.
The problem is less a lack of awareness than a lack of understanding. The
publicly sanctioned take is that "white supremacy" is why 80% of New
Orleans 's poor people are black. The civics lesson, we are to think, is
that the civil rights revolution left a job undone in an America still
hostile to black advancement.
In fact, white America does remain morally culpable - but because white
leftists in the late 1960s, in the name of enlightenment and benevolence,
encouraged the worst in human nature among blacks and even fostered it in
legislation. The hordes of poor blacks stuck in the Superdome last week
wound up there not because the White Man barred them from doing better,
but because certain tragically influential White Men destroyed the
fragile but lasting survival skills poor black communities had maintained
since the end of slavery.
Few thinking people regret the flower children's opposition to the
Vietnam war, sexism and racial discrimination. But these advances also
spelt the demise of old standards of responsibility. Taught that
criminality and violence must be judged in proportion to the extent to
which poverty and discrimination have coloured one's existence, the
enlightened white person saw black violence as "understandable".
This meant a largely theatrical black separatist ideology, drastically
short on constructive aims, had a public sanction that it had never had
before. Hating whitey for its own sake now had an ear among the
influential and quickly became the word on the street.
There was a new sense that the disadvantages of being black gave one a
pass on civility - or even achievement: this was when black teens started
teasing black nerds for "acting white".
Behaviour that most of a black community would have condemned as
counterproductive started to seem normal. Through the late 1960s blacks
burnt down their own neighbourhoods as gestures of being "fed up". But
blacks had been "fed up" for centuries: why were these the first riots
initiated by blacks rather than white thugs - when the economy was flush
and employment opportunities were opening up as never before? Because the
culture had changed, in ways that hindered too many blacks from taking
advantage of the civil rights revolution. Meanwhile, the most grievous
result of the new consensus was black American history's most
under-reported event, the expansion of welfare. Until now, welfare had
been a pittance intended for widows, unavailable as long as the father of
one's children was able-bodied and accounted for, and granted for as
little time as possible.
In 1966, however, a group of white academics in New York developed a plan
to bring as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible. Across the
country, poor blacks especially were taught to apply for living on the
dole even when they had been working for a living, and by 1970 there were
169% more people on welfare nationwide than in 1960.
This was the first time that whites or blacks had taught black people not
to work as a form of civil rights. Politicians and bureaucrats jumped on
the new opportunity for political patronage and votes, and welfare
quickly became a programme that essentially paid young women to have
children.
Only in 1996 was welfare limited to five years and focused on training
for work. But by then generations of poor blacks had grown up in
neighbourhoods where there was no requirement that fathers support their
children. Few grew up watching their primary parent work for a living.
Most people paid nominal subsidies as rent and were thus less inclined to
treat their living spaces well.
The multigenerational welfare family with grandmothers in their forties
became typical: young women had babies in their teens because there was
no reason not to with welfare waiting to pick up the tab.
This is the hell that most of the people in the Superdome either lived in
or knew at close hand, and none of them could help being stamped by it.
Welfare reform was only nine years ago. The women now past the five-year
cap are mostly struggling in dead-end jobs. This is better than living on
the dole. But these women are weighed down by too many kids created under
the old regime to have the time or energy to get the education to get
beyond where they are. Poor black neighbourhoods are not what they were
at the height of the crack epidemic in the 1980s, but they are still a
crying shame.
The poor black America that welfare expansion created in 1966 is still
with us. Poor young blacks have never known anything else. People as old
as 50 have only vague memories of life before it. For 30 years this was a
world within a world, as is made clear from how often the Katrina
refugees mention it is the first time they have ever left New Orleans.
What Katrina stripped bare, then, was not white supremacy, but that
culture matters - even if what created the culture was misguided white
benevolence. Social scientists neglect that before the 1960s poor blacks
knew plenty of economic downturns and plenty more racism.
But before the 1960s the kinds of behaviour so common among the blacks
stranded in the Superdome, possibly including multiple rapes, was a
fringe phenomenon. Only after the 1960s did it become a community norm.
Wise people tell us that poor blacks in New Orleans went to rack and ruin
when low-skill industrial jobs left the city centre, a common argument
about cities nationwide. But in cities like Indianapolis where the
factories largely stayed close, the same degradation began - starting in
the late 1960s.
Wise people tell us that housing projects destroyed poor black
communities by concentrating too many poor people in one place. But in
city after city, these projects were peaceful places until welfare
recipients were allowed to move in in large numbers.
All indications are that the reform of welfare in 1996 is bearing fruit
in terms of income and the life conditions of children. Hopefully,
legions of poor black people who return to New Orleans will take
advantage of the job opportunities that rebuilding a city will offer. But
what we should all remember from Katrina is a tragic close-up of a group
of people staggering after, first, a hideous natural disaster but,
ultimately, an equally hideous sociological disaster of 40 years ago.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1774271_1,00.html
COL. RSJ
2005-09-17 23:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJ_Red
YOU ARE SUCH AN IGNORANT SOUL. Did you see that 60% of the people in the TX
dome owned homes? I would imagine they were ghetto homes - the only
structures the NO whites would sell them. And lastly, there are more white
people on welfare than Blacks. An idiot like you, at least, should be able
to figure that one out. If that weren't true, welfare would have been
abolished years ago. Plus there are more whites in the country than Blacks.
So you think the gov would have continued the welfare system just for Black
folks. You dumb ass - wake up!
Percentage wise, blacks take much more than they give. Add their
inflated crime stats and we should have shit canned them long ago.
Finally, I think welfare would continue if only blacks got it, other
wise their natural violent nature would have them looting to the point
that we would have to kill the all to get some peace and quiet.
Post by JJ_Red
Post by Cybertron
This is an excellent article. Too bad it has to come from the U.K.
Instead of the idiotic blame game and calls for hearings after the storm,
the focus should have been directed at how the welfare system in this
country has totally gotten out of hand.
There's an article in the Baltimore Sun today about how the city of Baton
Rouge is regretting taking in so many welfare people.Of course their main
concern is the rise in crime. This segways the story from earlier this week
that the bridge out of New Orleans was closed down before the storm,
because the communties on the other side didn't want a huge influx of
niggers flooding their towns.
A lot of these areas are loaded with white liberals as well.Just because
the love the reliable nigger vote, doesn't mean they want a black welfare
family living next door.
Then I saw another story about the few thousand welfare niggers that were
transported to Utah which has less than 1% of it's population being
black.Most are living in the barracks at a Guard outpost there.Most of them
don't want to be there. Instead of looking at it as an oppurtunity for
starting over in crime free areas and decent housing they would rather go
back to a crime infested area such as New Orleans and pick up their old
lifestyle of getting their welfare checks.Living off the government is so
ingrained in their mentality,the thought of having to be self sufficent
just blows their minds.
Post by blargh
Ha! It should read, "What white do-gooders did TO black America." Seems
I remember something about the road to Hell being paved with good
intentions ____________________________________
Focus: White do-gooders did for black America
John McWhorter
September 11, 2005
Black poverty is the result of 30 years of misguided welfare rather than
racism, says John McWhorter
As it quickly became clear that there was a certain demographic skew
among the people stranded in New Orleans, journalists began intoning that
Hurricane Katrina had stripped bare the continuing racial inequity in
America.
The extent to which this was hidden is unclear, actually. An awareness
that a tragic disproportion of black Americans are poor has been a
hallmark of civic awareness among educated Americans for 40 years now.
The problem is less a lack of awareness than a lack of understanding. The
publicly sanctioned take is that "white supremacy" is why 80% of New
Orleans 's poor people are black. The civics lesson, we are to think, is
that the civil rights revolution left a job undone in an America still
hostile to black advancement.
In fact, white America does remain morally culpable - but because white
leftists in the late 1960s, in the name of enlightenment and benevolence,
encouraged the worst in human nature among blacks and even fostered it in
legislation. The hordes of poor blacks stuck in the Superdome last week
wound up there not because the White Man barred them from doing better,
but because certain tragically influential White Men destroyed the
fragile but lasting survival skills poor black communities had maintained
since the end of slavery.
Few thinking people regret the flower children's opposition to the
Vietnam war, sexism and racial discrimination. But these advances also
spelt the demise of old standards of responsibility. Taught that
criminality and violence must be judged in proportion to the extent to
which poverty and discrimination have coloured one's existence, the
enlightened white person saw black violence as "understandable".
This meant a largely theatrical black separatist ideology, drastically
short on constructive aims, had a public sanction that it had never had
before. Hating whitey for its own sake now had an ear among the
influential and quickly became the word on the street.
There was a new sense that the disadvantages of being black gave one a
pass on civility - or even achievement: this was when black teens started
teasing black nerds for "acting white".
Behaviour that most of a black community would have condemned as
counterproductive started to seem normal. Through the late 1960s blacks
burnt down their own neighbourhoods as gestures of being "fed up". But
blacks had been "fed up" for centuries: why were these the first riots
initiated by blacks rather than white thugs - when the economy was flush
and employment opportunities were opening up as never before? Because the
culture had changed, in ways that hindered too many blacks from taking
advantage of the civil rights revolution. Meanwhile, the most grievous
result of the new consensus was black American history's most
under-reported event, the expansion of welfare. Until now, welfare had
been a pittance intended for widows, unavailable as long as the father of
one's children was able-bodied and accounted for, and granted for as
little time as possible.
In 1966, however, a group of white academics in New York developed a plan
to bring as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible. Across the
country, poor blacks especially were taught to apply for living on the
dole even when they had been working for a living, and by 1970 there were
169% more people on welfare nationwide than in 1960.
This was the first time that whites or blacks had taught black people not
to work as a form of civil rights. Politicians and bureaucrats jumped on
the new opportunity for political patronage and votes, and welfare
quickly became a programme that essentially paid young women to have
children.
Only in 1996 was welfare limited to five years and focused on training
for work. But by then generations of poor blacks had grown up in
neighbourhoods where there was no requirement that fathers support their
children. Few grew up watching their primary parent work for a living.
Most people paid nominal subsidies as rent and were thus less inclined to
treat their living spaces well.
The multigenerational welfare family with grandmothers in their forties
became typical: young women had babies in their teens because there was
no reason not to with welfare waiting to pick up the tab.
This is the hell that most of the people in the Superdome either lived in
or knew at close hand, and none of them could help being stamped by it.
Welfare reform was only nine years ago. The women now past the five-year
cap are mostly struggling in dead-end jobs. This is better than living on
the dole. But these women are weighed down by too many kids created under
the old regime to have the time or energy to get the education to get
beyond where they are. Poor black neighbourhoods are not what they were
at the height of the crack epidemic in the 1980s, but they are still a
crying shame.
The poor black America that welfare expansion created in 1966 is still
with us. Poor young blacks have never known anything else. People as old
as 50 have only vague memories of life before it. For 30 years this was a
world within a world, as is made clear from how often the Katrina
refugees mention it is the first time they have ever left New Orleans.
What Katrina stripped bare, then, was not white supremacy, but that
culture matters - even if what created the culture was misguided white
benevolence. Social scientists neglect that before the 1960s poor blacks
knew plenty of economic downturns and plenty more racism.
But before the 1960s the kinds of behaviour so common among the blacks
stranded in the Superdome, possibly including multiple rapes, was a
fringe phenomenon. Only after the 1960s did it become a community norm.
Wise people tell us that poor blacks in New Orleans went to rack and ruin
when low-skill industrial jobs left the city centre, a common argument
about cities nationwide. But in cities like Indianapolis where the
factories largely stayed close, the same degradation began - starting in
the late 1960s.
Wise people tell us that housing projects destroyed poor black
communities by concentrating too many poor people in one place. But in
city after city, these projects were peaceful places until welfare
recipients were allowed to move in in large numbers.
All indications are that the reform of welfare in 1996 is bearing fruit
in terms of income and the life conditions of children. Hopefully,
legions of poor black people who return to New Orleans will take
advantage of the job opportunities that rebuilding a city will offer. But
what we should all remember from Katrina is a tragic close-up of a group
of people staggering after, first, a hideous natural disaster but,
ultimately, an equally hideous sociological disaster of 40 years ago.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1774271_1,00.html
--

"We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent
and the least discerning of mankind, and the least
capable of understanding the
consequences of actions."
Jahiz (d. 868 AD), _Kitab al-Bukhala'
Way Back Jack
2005-09-18 00:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJ_Red
And lastly, there are more white
people on welfare than Blacks.
Of course, dumbass. Blacks are only 13% of the population.
Post by JJ_Red
Plus there are more whites in the country than Blacks.
My point exactly.

Here dummy:

* Race: About 1 in 4 Black mothers of childbearing ages (1.5 million)
were AFDC recipients, higher than the 7 percent of corresponding White
mothers (2.1 million). Despite these differences in recipiency rates,
Black AFDC mothers did not have sig nificantly more children than
their White counterparts.

* Hispanic origin: Nearly 1 in 5 Hispanic mothers (784,000) aged 15 to
44 were on AFDC. By comparison, about 1 in 10 (3.0 million)
non-Hispanic mothers were AFDC recipents. Although both Hispanic and
non-Hispanic mothers on AFDC were an average of 20 years old when they
had their first child, Hispanic women had almost 0.7 more children
than non-Hispanic women. About 3 in 10 Hispanic mothers on AFDC were
born outside the Unit ed States.
Loading...