No, you have been great. And I mean that. But this is an explosive issue, and I've been bitten before.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Real Issues Facing Black America
- Thread starter Bro. Curtis
- Start date
"Race-based preferences have allowed so many more African-Americans to have the opportunity to bein college than would have been without it. Instead of getting rid of race-based preferences, we should increase funding to help the black community succeed in college. Much of this should be done in public schools, and a lot can be done in the colleges and universities as well. But let's not take away the opportunity for success. Let's enhance their ability to utilize that opportunity instead.""
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Been there- done that. Show me the results. Blacks were making alot more progress before the democrates decided to buy them with the all the social porgrams. A people who could have taken their place beside the other races, has chronically lagged behind, because of the new slave masters who bought them off just when their opportunity was at hand. Democrates and liberal whites don't care about what is best for blacks, they only care about the votes and the sell outs like Jackson who will help them keep the votes.
Jackson's activities with RC and OP have very little to do with his political power, it is solely based on the democrates calling on him as their appointed leader because he carries out their programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Been there- done that. Show me the results. Blacks were making alot more progress before the democrates decided to buy them with the all the social porgrams. A people who could have taken their place beside the other races, has chronically lagged behind, because of the new slave masters who bought them off just when their opportunity was at hand. Democrates and liberal whites don't care about what is best for blacks, they only care about the votes and the sell outs like Jackson who will help them keep the votes.
Jackson's activities with RC and OP have very little to do with his political power, it is solely based on the democrates calling on him as their appointed leader because he carries out their programs.
F
Filmproducer
Guest
Blacks were making alot more progress before the democrates decided to buy them with the all the social porgrams.
Please provide proof. The last time I checked FDR's New Deal began our modern welfare policies. Before affirmative action in higher education African Americans were often denied the right to attend higher education programs for which they were qualified. See Sipuel v. Board of Regents (1948), here the court unanimously struck down an Oklahoma state law which refused to admit qualified African Americans to the state law school. Even after the court's decision in Sipuel African Americans were still not treated equally or with respect. Once again in 1950 the court struck down an Oklahoma law that segregated African Americans within graduate schools. See McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950). In 1962 president Kennedy had to send several thousand troops and federalize the Mississippi National Guard when Governor Ross Barnett forcefully excluded James Meredith, an African American, from U. Miss. These cases signify the beginning of affirmative action in higher education. Please explain to me how African Americans would be better without them. IMHO, without these initial rulings and subsequent ones African Americans would be worse off.
Democrates and liberal whites don't care about what is best for blacks, they only care about the votes and the sell outs like Jackson who will help them keep the votes.
The same can be said for Republicans or conservatives. It is all about the vote when you are involved in the political game. If the Republicans or conservatives would actually show how they help African Americans maybe many African Americans would switch parties. that is the political game, that is how American politics works. Besides the African American vote does not guarantee victory for either party.
Jackson's activities with RC and OP have very little to do with his political power, it is solely based on the democrates calling on him as their appointed leader because he carries out their programs.
I disagree, besides Jackson's "power" is more cultural than it is political. He does not hold any elected office, but is respected in some circles. He has affected change, but not through political means of his own. I don't consider him the "appointed leader" of the Democratic party, especially with other African Americans, of some importance, who have been federally elected. Maxine Waters, for instance.
Please provide proof. The last time I checked FDR's New Deal began our modern welfare policies. Before affirmative action in higher education African Americans were often denied the right to attend higher education programs for which they were qualified. See Sipuel v. Board of Regents (1948), here the court unanimously struck down an Oklahoma state law which refused to admit qualified African Americans to the state law school. Even after the court's decision in Sipuel African Americans were still not treated equally or with respect. Once again in 1950 the court struck down an Oklahoma law that segregated African Americans within graduate schools. See McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950). In 1962 president Kennedy had to send several thousand troops and federalize the Mississippi National Guard when Governor Ross Barnett forcefully excluded James Meredith, an African American, from U. Miss. These cases signify the beginning of affirmative action in higher education. Please explain to me how African Americans would be better without them. IMHO, without these initial rulings and subsequent ones African Americans would be worse off.
Democrates and liberal whites don't care about what is best for blacks, they only care about the votes and the sell outs like Jackson who will help them keep the votes.
The same can be said for Republicans or conservatives. It is all about the vote when you are involved in the political game. If the Republicans or conservatives would actually show how they help African Americans maybe many African Americans would switch parties. that is the political game, that is how American politics works. Besides the African American vote does not guarantee victory for either party.
Jackson's activities with RC and OP have very little to do with his political power, it is solely based on the democrates calling on him as their appointed leader because he carries out their programs.
I disagree, besides Jackson's "power" is more cultural than it is political. He does not hold any elected office, but is respected in some circles. He has affected change, but not through political means of his own. I don't consider him the "appointed leader" of the Democratic party, especially with other African Americans, of some importance, who have been federally elected. Maxine Waters, for instance.
"The last time I checked FDR's New Deal began our modern welfare policies"---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not necessaraly talking about ancient history. FDR's new deal is 70 year's in the past now. I'm talking more "great society". Read some of the conservative black commentators. They will make the point much better than I could.
"Besides the African American vote does not guarantee victory for either party"---------------------------------------------------------------
Did you just take a soma? If we even took 40 percent of the black vote and gave it to republican candidates it would be a long time before we saw another Democratic president. And the democratic senate count would shrink dramatically. And you know that. If kerry lost even 20 percent of the black vote he would have been trounced, And if Bush had even 20 percent he would have won by a landslide. I am not sure how you don't get this. Demos, have to hold onto the black vote by any and all means, and the best means they have found is keeping blacks on the dole and keeping them scared of the racist boogy man.
We already established that the republican party was the party of the blacks, and the party that faught for their rights prior to the "great society" when the Demos bought them off with the not so "great society".
I don't consider him the appointed leader of the Democratic party either. I said he was their choosen leader of thier black constiutants. Why not Andrew Young or the others, because they are not sell outs like Jackson.
Maxine Waters, what a quack. Do you have a high opinion of her?
Did you
I'm not necessaraly talking about ancient history. FDR's new deal is 70 year's in the past now. I'm talking more "great society". Read some of the conservative black commentators. They will make the point much better than I could.
"Besides the African American vote does not guarantee victory for either party"---------------------------------------------------------------
Did you just take a soma? If we even took 40 percent of the black vote and gave it to republican candidates it would be a long time before we saw another Democratic president. And the democratic senate count would shrink dramatically. And you know that. If kerry lost even 20 percent of the black vote he would have been trounced, And if Bush had even 20 percent he would have won by a landslide. I am not sure how you don't get this. Demos, have to hold onto the black vote by any and all means, and the best means they have found is keeping blacks on the dole and keeping them scared of the racist boogy man.
We already established that the republican party was the party of the blacks, and the party that faught for their rights prior to the "great society" when the Demos bought them off with the not so "great society".
I don't consider him the appointed leader of the Democratic party either. I said he was their choosen leader of thier black constiutants. Why not Andrew Young or the others, because they are not sell outs like Jackson.
Maxine Waters, what a quack. Do you have a high opinion of her?
Did you
F
Filmproducer
Guest
I'm not necessaraly talking about ancient history.
You said that African Americans were better off before. That is why I presented case law to the contrary.
If we even took 40 percent of the black vote and gave it to republican candidates it would be a long time before we saw another Democratic president.
That is assuming Republicans can maintain approval ratings. like it or not approval ratings for Bush will have an impact on the next election. As far as the black vote, I stated what I meant in a poor manner. As far as any candidate is the concerned the most important vote is the independent vote or the moderates. If you win the majority of the independent vote you win the election.
...Demos bought them off with the not so "great society".
African Americans switched parties during the Great Depression when the Republican party when they would not do anything for black people. however, even though New Deal policies were technically were to help everyone many African Americans were excluded for some reason or another. So I don't consider it "buying" the votes.
Even if today's democrats do not do anything constructive for the African American population according to your standard, no one has yet to show me what the Republicans do. The issue is more of a conservative v. liberal policies, than a racial matter.
Why not Andrew Young or the others...
What do they do specifically for the community. it does no good to speculate about problems and their solutions without actions. Perhaps that is why Jackson is more successful. Larry Elder was beginning to see this when he got his own TV show. This does not have the same impact as community outreach programs, though.
Do you have a high opinion of her?
Not necessairly. I only used her because she is outspoken and well known, in addition to having been elected.
You said that African Americans were better off before. That is why I presented case law to the contrary.
If we even took 40 percent of the black vote and gave it to republican candidates it would be a long time before we saw another Democratic president.
That is assuming Republicans can maintain approval ratings. like it or not approval ratings for Bush will have an impact on the next election. As far as the black vote, I stated what I meant in a poor manner. As far as any candidate is the concerned the most important vote is the independent vote or the moderates. If you win the majority of the independent vote you win the election.
...Demos bought them off with the not so "great society".
African Americans switched parties during the Great Depression when the Republican party when they would not do anything for black people. however, even though New Deal policies were technically were to help everyone many African Americans were excluded for some reason or another. So I don't consider it "buying" the votes.
Even if today's democrats do not do anything constructive for the African American population according to your standard, no one has yet to show me what the Republicans do. The issue is more of a conservative v. liberal policies, than a racial matter.
Why not Andrew Young or the others...
What do they do specifically for the community. it does no good to speculate about problems and their solutions without actions. Perhaps that is why Jackson is more successful. Larry Elder was beginning to see this when he got his own TV show. This does not have the same impact as community outreach programs, though.
Do you have a high opinion of her?
Not necessairly. I only used her because she is outspoken and well known, in addition to having been elected.
"African Americans switched parties during the Great Depression"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't someone post a link and show that the majority of blacks voted for Eisenhower. I think the switch came during the Johnson years.
" when the Republican party when they would not do anything for black people."------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't that same post show that most of the good legislation that benefited blacks came from republicans, the party of Lincolin, the party that ended slavery. All the Demos did was bought the blacks of with social programs. Programs that Larry Elders and other black conservitives think has been like poision to the black race.
Didn't someone post a link and show that the majority of blacks voted for Eisenhower. I think the switch came during the Johnson years.
" when the Republican party when they would not do anything for black people."------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't that same post show that most of the good legislation that benefited blacks came from republicans, the party of Lincolin, the party that ended slavery. All the Demos did was bought the blacks of with social programs. Programs that Larry Elders and other black conservitives think has been like poision to the black race.
F
Filmproducer
Guest
Didn't someone post a link and show that the majority of blacks voted for Eisenhower. I think the switch came during the Johnson years.
No, Johnson declared the "War on Poverty". The African American "switch" from Republican to Democrat began around the Great Depression when FDR began reconstructing government policies. Hoover's failures affected the Republicans so much that the Republican party lost 82 incumbent congressmen in 1932. In contrast FDR created access to WPA jobs and welfare rolls, as well as admission to public housing for blacks. In 1941 FDR established the Fair Employment Practices Commission which prohibited discriminated by race in defense industries and government. This was in response to a threat of a mass march in Washington by blacks. In fact in 1948 southern democrats were so unhappy with the party's platform concerning civil liberties that they broke off and created the "states'-right Dixiecrat" party.
I have many books in my libary that reference this. When I have time i will post them.
No, Johnson declared the "War on Poverty". The African American "switch" from Republican to Democrat began around the Great Depression when FDR began reconstructing government policies. Hoover's failures affected the Republicans so much that the Republican party lost 82 incumbent congressmen in 1932. In contrast FDR created access to WPA jobs and welfare rolls, as well as admission to public housing for blacks. In 1941 FDR established the Fair Employment Practices Commission which prohibited discriminated by race in defense industries and government. This was in response to a threat of a mass march in Washington by blacks. In fact in 1948 southern democrats were so unhappy with the party's platform concerning civil liberties that they broke off and created the "states'-right Dixiecrat" party.
I have many books in my libary that reference this. When I have time i will post them.
The dixiecrats were an aberation and nothing more. Hoover could have been a repub, a demo or a Martian. It would not have mattered. What ever party was in office when the depression hit was going to loose big, regardless of the facts.
I don't remember who posted, but someone posted a link which showed all of the major legislation the rebuplicans put forth to create equal rights for blacks. It was pretty one sided. This person also showed a large portion of blacks voted for Eisenhower. The blacks did not become a single party race until Johnson's "great society". Receiveing a Check in the mail from the government for nothing tends to win loyalty. But it has been bad for blacks.
The difference is Repubs simply provided for a fair playing field, the Demos paid them off. Now there is a whole section of the black race that knows no other life than that of being provided for by the government. A whole portion of that race that can't survive or thrive without gov handouts.
I don't remember who posted, but someone posted a link which showed all of the major legislation the rebuplicans put forth to create equal rights for blacks. It was pretty one sided. This person also showed a large portion of blacks voted for Eisenhower. The blacks did not become a single party race until Johnson's "great society". Receiveing a Check in the mail from the government for nothing tends to win loyalty. But it has been bad for blacks.
The difference is Repubs simply provided for a fair playing field, the Demos paid them off. Now there is a whole section of the black race that knows no other life than that of being provided for by the government. A whole portion of that race that can't survive or thrive without gov handouts.
hillclimber
New Member
Jackson is a race monger and Bennett is not. Jackson has been flapping his gums to the same tune for years and there can't be much doubt about him. He's all about making race and issue in every matter. </font>[/QUOTE]So true. Race is the issue he needs for his shakedowns of companies. The dem's depend on him to deliver the black vote.
Looks like Mr. Jackson will be going to court soon:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050921/clw064.html?.v=20
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050921/clw064.html?.v=20
I think there is room for inprovement on both sides but reverse racisim in the form of gov policy and corperate excess is the main form of racisim we see today. Managers in the organization I work for are required to get engaged in diversity training. Or get fired. One requirement is to attend two approved function a year. On the list is the Black democratic Caucus meetings as well as NAACP meetings. I don't know about you but I consider it an unamerican tradgedy to be told I have to attend political meetings of any stripe- black or white, Rebublican or Democrat.
The race politics of today is nothing anymore but a wedge to force polical concession form any group but your own.
The race politics of today is nothing anymore but a wedge to force polical concession form any group but your own.
F
Filmproducer
Guest
1. The "dixiecrats" were not an aberration. In actuality they became part of the modern Republican party. You must remeber that the Republicans of old were the progressive party. Political parties have changed drastically over the years, as they should, and the old Republican platforms, of Lincoln that you mentioned, have nothing to do with the Republican party of today.
2. Hoover could have been a repub, a demo or a Martian. It would not have mattered. What ever party was in office when the depression hit was going to loose big, regardless of the facts.
Once again you missed my point. If you remember in my previous post i pointed out that the approval ratings of a President seriously affects the rest of his party. Hoover's laissez-faire approach to economics did nothing to help the economic depression of the time. The self- regulating approach to the market could never show inmmediate results. The American people were desperate for a change, and FDR's government interventionism was the complete opposite of Hoover and the traditional Republican values of the time.
3. ...major legislation the rebuplicans put forth to create equal rights for blacks.
Once again this was when the Republican party was more progressive. At this time the Republicans were for a more centralized Federal government and the Democrats were more interested in states' rights. They began the "civil rights" legislation with the 13th, 14th, and 15th ammendments. The last of which was added on March 30, 1870. By the 1930's FDR's and a new brand of Democrats took up these issues in part. FDR passed legislation that called for fairness and equal treatment for blacks. Remember, I previously mentioned the Fair Employment Practices Commission.
It was pretty one sided.
In the late 1800's. Just as it was pretty one sided in the 30's and the 60's, etc.
4. a large portion of blacks voted for Eisenhower.
Actually no they did not, in a sense. The black population barely voted at this time. The Voting Right's Act that Lincoln passed essentially gave them the right to vote on paper, but not necessarily in reality. Let's face the facts.
Besides, Eisenhower was a WWII Genral whom both parties rallied around. His election could actually be considered the aberration in party politics. As i have stated before the switch began with FDR's New Deal Coalition. This is when the Democrats split into two groups. The Dixiecrats split and eventually merged with the Republicans. The New Deal Democrats formed the early base of our modern day democrats.
5. The blacks did not become a single party race until Johnson's "great society".
No, once again it was Johnson who declared the "War on Poverty". He also signed the Voting Right Act of 1965 into law. Now it would be correct to say that this "solidified' the African American vote, because now many barriers to their actual voting were beginning to be removed, but as far as any party affiliation that switch began with FDR's New Deal Coalition.
6. Now there is a whole section of the black race that knows no other life than that of being provided for by the government. A whole portion of that race that can't survive or thrive without gov handouts.
I will not go down this road again. I could talk until I was blue in the face and no one would listen. Statistics do not matter, actual numbers do not matter. Stereotypes and pre-dispositions matter.
1. The "dixiecrats" were not an aberration. In actuality they became part of the modern Republican party. You must remeber that the Republicans of old were the progressive party. Political parties have changed drastically over the years, as they should, and the old Republican platforms, of Lincoln that you mentioned, have nothing to do with the Republican party of today.
2. Hoover could have been a repub, a demo or a Martian. It would not have mattered. What ever party was in office when the depression hit was going to loose big, regardless of the facts.
Once again you missed my point. If you remember in my previous post i pointed out that the approval ratings of a President seriously affects the rest of his party. Hoover's laissez-faire approach to economics did nothing to help the economic depression of the time. The self- regulating approach to the market could never show inmmediate results. The American people were desperate for a change, and FDR's government interventionism was the complete opposite of Hoover and the traditional Republican values of the time.
3. ...major legislation the rebuplicans put forth to create equal rights for blacks.
Once again this was when the Republican party was more progressive. At this time the Republicans were for a more centralized Federal government and the Democrats were more interested in states' rights. They began the "civil rights" legislation with the 13th, 14th, and 15th ammendments. The last of which was added on March 30, 1870. By the 1930's FDR's and a new brand of Democrats took up these issues in part. FDR passed legislation that called for fairness and equal treatment for blacks. Remember, I previously mentioned the Fair Employment Practices Commission.
It was pretty one sided.
In the late 1800's. Just as it was pretty one sided in the 30's and the 60's, etc.
4. a large portion of blacks voted for Eisenhower.
Actually no they did not, in a sense. The black population barely voted at this time. The Voting Right's Act that Lincoln passed essentially gave them the right to vote on paper, but not necessarily in reality. Let's face the facts.
Besides, Eisenhower was a WWII Genral whom both parties rallied around. His election could actually be considered the aberration in party politics. As i have stated before the switch began with FDR's New Deal Coalition. This is when the Democrats split into two groups. The Dixiecrats split and eventually merged with the Republicans. The New Deal Democrats formed the early base of our modern day democrats.
5. The blacks did not become a single party race until Johnson's "great society".
No, once again it was Johnson who declared the "War on Poverty". He also signed the Voting Right Act of 1965 into law. Now it would be correct to say that this "solidified' the African American vote, because now many barriers to their actual voting were beginning to be removed, but as far as any party affiliation that switch began with FDR's New Deal Coalition.
6. Now there is a whole section of the black race that knows no other life than that of being provided for by the government. A whole portion of that race that can't survive or thrive without gov handouts.
I will not go down this road again. I could talk until I was blue in the face and no one would listen. Statistics do not matter, actual numbers do not matter. Stereotypes and pre-dispositions matter. </font>[/QUOTE]Filmproducer what you do say does matter and people are listening...the world is changing
towards you and away from dinosaur style entrenchment that does not think outside the box.
As for the numbers the books have been cooked and
afro-americans have not benifited because they
are like you said stereotyped.
The Republican party of today tries to take a step
forward then you have Bill Bennett taking a stupid
pill and they go backwards two steps ..that is why
afro-americans do not support them in droves.
God created all his children with a work ethic it
is the same in every one of us. God created in
all his children the spirit of knowing right from
wrong...God created us equally.
I know this is used a lot but it is true ..
Education is the key...for everyone. Amen