Not nearly as much as Obama and the rest of the socialist dems.Originally Posted by Guisslapp
|
|
|
|
|
Not nearly as much as Obama and the rest of the socialist dems.
95 percent of African Americans voted for Obama in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012.
Good old Memorial Gym
And about the same percent for every other democratic nominee since the 1960s when the Republican nominee opposed the Civil Rights Act. Republicans have not done anything to win back their support since then.
I'm jumping back into this discussion late in the hour, and after reading the article posted at the header:
I argue that the claim of systemic racism is in the exact same vein as income inequality. Both focus on equality of outcomes and not equality of opportunity. It is an important distinction.
A black woman born today has opportunities he/she would not have had 200 years go. This is an undeniable fact. However, the argument presented is that the equality of opportunity of the contemporary is hindered due to that prior injustice. Is her opportunity limited by the long-ago banned institution of slavery and or Jim Crow? I think I would successfully argue that it is not. Opportunity is not afforded to us by our history, but by our present and future in the form of the legal framework.
To be consistent, you must make the same argument of women at large, as they have only achieved the right to vote within the last 100 years. How about Japanese Americans after WWII? Asian immigrants in the late 1800s who were treated only marginally better than slaves can also be considered victims of the systemic racism of the prior century.
As to property and inherited wealth:
De Tocqueville properly observed the property inheritance customs (forced heir-ship, etc) in the US to be contributory to a constant shuffling of wealth, a kind of insurance policy against the creation of an aristocracy. Case in point: Those great and wealthy plantation owning families of the antebellum south that survived the war intact for the most part have no holdings like they once did. I cannot imagine a more pure beneficiary of systemic racism.
When the estate is split among the children, the property is almost never re-encompassed to the whole. To argue that inheritance is a cause of systemic oppression is to ignore the facts: Millions are made and squandered between generations. Very few examples of generational wealth exist beyond the figure of 3. Additionally, the capital that does remain in one family is often put back to economic use through investment, aiding the wealth of others. This is by necessity to maintain inflationary protection due to economic growth. The wealthy, by nature of the free market, cannot simply hoard their treasures to the exclusion of others. To buy into systemic oppression is to buy into the finite, zero-sum, socialist view of economics and wealth.
Which leads me to my point:
The only immediate remedy for "systemic racism" is economic reparation. I have not yet heard a convincing solution to the nebulous description of systemic racism other than a shift of wealth. Therefore, systemic racism MUST be a call to inequality of outcomes.
I offered solutions that isn’t directly reparation, but instead focuses on providing disadvantaged folks better opportunities to succeed. The playing field is just not level.
I have scoured the thread but did not see your solutions. Point the way, please.
Had to do with better schools and better programs - educational and vocational training, nutrition, and cultural - for communities. Not just throw money at the problem, but focus on quality.
Yes the liberals do for sure as it boosts the votes from much of their enabled base.
Just shows the sheep type mentality and effect the entitlements have had on them. There have been very many good GOP nominees since the 1960's.
Now that we could agree upon but will probably never happen. Reason being you need quality teachers to physically go into these areas and neighborhoods of severe need and it has become way too dangerous with almost military/police escort a must. But if there is a way a New Yorker like Trump might find it.
The goal of every community is to increase the quality of its public services. By law, public services maintain equal benefit regardless of race.
If the playing field is not level, wouldn't the white members of said community benefit more than the targeted demographic, further exacerbating the problem?
Why not just write every black household a check for $100,000? Considering the median net worth of the US household is around $45,000, 1.4Trillion dollars to wipe out racism seems a paltry sum.
You think the impact of systemic racism is only $100,000?
I don’t.
No one is saying that you can’t help disadvantaged white, Hispanic, other people that are members of the same community.
Double the current median net worth of US households? Sounds like a starting point.
Negotiate it then. What number do you think is appropriate?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b08ffac1276bd7 Some suggestions for how much to pay.
Need to let Jesse, Al, and Don King dole it out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote