White male privilege? Yep! the privilege to be the ONLY demographic group that is NOT a protected group. Worse if you're a WM under 40. Worst still if you're str8. And ultimately worse if you happened to be all of those and a Southern Christian.
It always struck me as "curious" when I would attend some guvmint program workshop and the speaker would proudly boast, to the members of said protected groups, "y'all can qualify for a guaranteed blah, blah, blah, whatever it happened to be, because, he/she would say, you're a member of a protected group. Then start listing them: women, minorities, especially African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, oh man! talk about special privilege, wow! You injun-types can qualify for anything! Let's see, members of LGBTQA... Um, well, then spying some poor ole white dude about 30 years old, everyone but that dude there is protected! I guess all of you, dozens and dozens of folks, are protected from him!!!!!!!!!
Yeppers! white male privilege. Victims of real systemic discrimination.
I'm not familiar with "Stormfront."
The truth stings, doesn't it. All you libtards with your stupid systemic this and that, and it is YOU that practice the ONLY discrimination, the ONLY racism. Facts are facts. Look it up. See who is in the "protected classes" and who isn't. In other words, thanks to the federal guvmint and azzholes like you, it is perfectly okay (and even encouraged) to discriminate against a minority class of Americans. Minority class? Yes, those white males that are NOT protected, represent about 25% of the US population. 75% can discriminate against 25%. Looks like a minority to me.
I did not include white males over 40, since technically, anyone over 40 is "protected" by anti-age-discrimination laws. In practice, it's a crock. First, it's very hard to prove someone acted in violation of the law....the burden of proof is on the plaintive. And, there are subtle ways to practice age discrimination. For instance, a couple of years ago I was finalist for a position. There were 50+ applicants and I made the final three. We were interviewed three separate times by a committee, then another group, and finally the top dog and his sidekick. One of the committee members said to me... "you are too experienced." And when I didn't get the job, another said to me, "your credentials are impeccable, but we were looking for someone a little more dynamic." Translation: young. The person hired is 37.
So, white males over 40 are really NOT protected either.
Yes, of course, I was specifically referring to those "falsely accused" because I get my jollies from innocent people getting hurt. OMG!
And of course, because apparently YOU were once "falsely accused" then of course everyone else who practices unlawful discrimination are automatically exonerated.
Have YOU ever been discriminated against? Have you? You OBVIOUSLY have never been. So....you are actually complaining that people who break the law get a free pass? You must be a democrap! Oh, from Arkansas, the land of the evil klintons. I get it now. Yes, of course you support the law-breakers.
This could have been placed somewhere else but great points to share.
SAGE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL
LARRY ELDER
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/12/Larry-Elder_avatar.jpg
LARRY ELDER
Are schools teaching this during Black History Month?
When will Black History Month be … history?
Apart from the bizarre notion that educators should set aside one month to salute the historical achievements of one race apart from and above the historical achievements of other races, Black History Month appears to omit a lot of black history.
About slavery, do our mostly left-wing educators teach that slavery was not unique to America and is as old as humankind? As economist and author Thomas Sowell says: “More whites were brought as slaves to North Africa than blacks brought as slaves to the United States or to the 13 colonies from which it was formed. White slaves were still being bought and sold in the Ottoman Empire, decades after blacks were freed in the United States.”
Are students taught that “race-based preferences,” sometimes called “affirmative action,” were opposed by several civil rights leaders? While National Urban League Executive Director Whitney Young supported a type of “Marshall Plan” for a period of 10 years to make up for historical discrimination, his board of directors refused to endorse the plan. In rejecting it, the president of the Urban League in Pittsburgh said the public would ask, “What in blazes are these guys up to? They tell us for years that we must buy (nondiscrimination) and then they say, ‘It isn’t what we want.'” A member of the Urban League in New York objected to what he called “the heart of it – the business of employing Negroes (because they are Negroes).” Bayard Rustin was one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s key lieutenants and helped to plan and organize the civil rights march in D.C. that culminated in King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Rustin, an openly gay black man, also opposed race-based preferences.
Do our left-wing educators, during Black History Month, note that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s celebrated New Deal actually hurt blacks? According to Cato Institute’s Jim Powell, blacks lost as many as 500,000 jobs as a result of anti-competitive, job-killing regulations of the New Deal.
Powell writes: “The flagship of the New Deal was the National Industrial Recovery Act, passed in June 1933. It authorized the president to issue executive orders establishing some 700 industrial cartels, which restricted output and forced wages and prices above market levels. The minimum wage regulations made it illegal for employers to hire people who weren’t worth the minimum because they lacked skills. As a result, some 500,000 blacks, particularly in the South, were estimated to have lost their jobs. Marginal workers, like unskilled blacks, desperately needed an expanding economy to create more jobs. Yet New Deal policies made it harder for employers to hire people. FDR tripled federal taxes between 1933 and 1940. … By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the (1935) Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/u-s-high-...mwy68wS5Bth.99
Good information. Never heard any of that in school, or anywhere else.
That is because it is wrong in some respects and misleading in others. The number of whites involved in Barbary slave trade in North Afrifa is estimated to be somewhere around 35,0000 (not the million+ estimate that assumes that slaves were imported at the same rate as it was at its peak) compared with the 388k slaves brought to the colonies. Misleading because over 12 million slaves were captured and brought on ships to the new world and only about 10 million survived, with most being brought to the Caribbean and South America,
I wonder why the article Ray posted doesn’t bring up these facts. Oh - because the article is intended to mislead.
35,000. Fat fingers on iPhone.