"Black people were better off during the Jim Crow era"-the coli

[yyy]

This thread just shows how much of a simple c00n you are purp lips. You started this thread on a false premise and straw man argument. The argument is not that "black life was better during Jim Crow". The argument is that integration hasn't helped the black community and that the black community is just as disenfranchised/weak as before integration. You can most certainly make the argument that were worse off now than we were before integration.

Yes there were more blacks living in poverty during overt segregation but there where more whites living in poverty during that time as well. It's like you never heard of the war on poverty and the creation of all of the social programs that came with it. The poverty rate was like 20% before Johnson created the social programs(Medicaid, Medicare, permanent food stamp program, ect) in '64 and it hasn't dropped below 15% since.

You didn't even make an argument here. You just posted some graph and made some feminine ass sarcastic comments arguing against a straw man that you created? What exactly is your point here? That the democrats and their policies have actually been beneficial to blacks? That integration has actually been beneficial to blacks? I just skimmed the thread and I haven't seen you come out and directly make a detailed argument coming saying those things, and the reason is because you know it's bullshyt. The social programs may help keep more blacks out of poverty but they also help handicap the community and keep it weak and dependent, maintaining the status quo which is white supremacy. Any benefits that came with integration were due to the actual alleviation of systematic white supremacy, not allowing blacks to patronize private white businesses.

The truth is that segregation and Jim Crow never really ended, they just changed forms. This country is still pretty much segregated and we still have two sets of laws for whites and blacks. The only thing that integration did was deflect from systematic white supremacy giving blacks this false perception of white acceptance which has lulled blacks to sleep. So no, you and de rest of these democratic liberal left c00ns are still wrong. The people who call out the civil rights generation for selling out for integration and how that hasn't helped the black community, are absolutely right.

You make a lot of good points but the real question you have to answer is this. Would Blacks be better or worse off if there was still segregation. It is very easy to point to all of the issues that still remain in terms of African-Americans getting full equality but do you think African-Americans would be better or worse off if Jim Crow was still the law of the land. Yes segregation still exist in a de facto sense, but if your argument is that African Americans would be better off if we still had to go colored bathrooms, and colored water fountains, and were prevented from getting jobs in the dominant society I completely disagree you.

You should go and read some memoirs by some famous African-Americans writers. During the time of segregation, African-Americans would routinely die from injuries that could be prevented because White hospitals would turn them away. I was reading Langston Hughes' memoir and he talked about how when he was at Hampton reciting his poems, the school had gotten news that one of the recently graduated football players was killed by a mob because he parked in the White only parking lot.

This is MLK talking about the effects of segregation, "Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say,wait...when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored";

It is very easy to sit and type on your keyboard about how the ending of segregation caused all of these problems for the Black community, but the reality is that because segregation and Jim Crow was so degrading and humiliating it had to be the first thing to be attacked and done away with. What you don't mention in your post, but I will mention now, is that back in the time of Jim Crow, most African-Americans believed that they really were second class citizens. Go and read Andrew Young's memoir "An Easy Burden" he talks about how many African-Americans in New Orleans refused to go to his dad's dental practice (believing that a Black dentist must be inferior), until his dad treated a white man. Read "Black Like Me." You speak about the overt segregation of yesterday like it's equivalent to covert segregation today. It's not. People like Dr. King and Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael and Rap Brown were the exception not the rule. The majority of African-Americans back then were ashamed of being Black.

So are things imperfect yes, is there covert segregation yes, are there two separate laws for Black and White Americans yes, but things are much much better than they use to be. And when you shyt on the accomplishments generations that have come before us you kill our martyrs twice. Medgar Evers and Dr. King and Malcolm X wanted a world where there kids would not be ashamed of being Black they accomplished that. Now it's our generations turn to carry the ball forward. Let's not waste our time and energy fighting the battles of yesterday because the past is written in stone. Rather lets discuss the best way forward.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

But this is not true by any measure.

Gotta start with the truth if you want to make a valid argument.

ironic. You claim the mans argument is false, without actually presenting an argument for why that is. But it is what it is, I just wanted to clarify the man's positions because I strongly felt ppl were misinterpreting his stance.

I know exactly what Thomas Sowell says and it's bullshyt. I was speaking to the poster about the premise of the OP, not Sowell's ideology. Pay better attention. All Sowell does is echo white supremacist positions

>All Sowell does is echo white supremacist positions

I honestly stopped reading right here. Based on this alone, I can clearly see that there would be no reason for us to converse on this subject.

I've read a lot so usually I would respond but I have to go to the library and do some studying. Also, your post is interesting from the aspect that you never say what you think, but rather only what Thomas Sowell believes.

Yes, that was the point. I wanted to clear up the strawmans being made, not post my personal opinion.

Black conservatives/libertarians have some points but in my opinion there argument falls flat when you look at how the U.S. economy actually developed. The white middle class as we know it was created by the post WWII G.I. bill. Farmers have been getting subsidies from the government for years. Non-Black Americans were given large swaths of land in the west and the midwest for free. Railroads were given subsidies to link the nation together. MLK has a great line in one of his speeches that goes, and I'm paraphrasing, "What some people really believe is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich." If the government tries to help the poor, people scream bloody murder but when it comes to helping the rich they are silent.

The flaw in your analysis is that you are under the premise that the Government use of heavy taxation and redistribution from it is responsible for America's middle-class growth in income in the mid 20th century not free markets, which is leading you to conclude that the Conservative argument about Gov't is either wrong and they don't know it, or they are pursing their own self-interest by promoting a lie.

Personally, I always find this argument really odd, because this is testable. if B follows from A, than we should expect were there is more of A that there will be more of B. In the case of Gov't programs, we can look at the results of FHA, HUD, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Community Reinvestment Act, Social Security, Medicare, Student Loan Programs, Obamacare/ACA, Earned Income Tax Credit, Unemployment Insurance Program and more and reach a conclusion if, in fact, that B follows from A. Not only that, but America isn't the only place in history were these hypothesis could be tested. Results produce by Gov't planning has been observed and argued for decades.

Does Thomas Sowell hit gas subsidies and ethanol subsidies and corporation subsidies as hard as he hits governmental programs for the poor? Does Thomas Sowell talk about individual suffering and the government role in limiting it?

Do a google research on his opinions about Gov't subsidies and voucher/tax schemes to help parents have more decision making power in their children's education. He has put out a ton of information regarding his positions on a multitude of topics and explains better than I could on, off the cuff, in a forum post.

Lastly I disagree with Thomas Sowell's notion on trade-offs. For example, the United States is a better country without slavery and jim crow. To put it in economical terms that's not a trade-off where we moved on the utility curve but a shift where we produced a better society. So the notion that everything is a trade-off is just not true. The issue is to figure out how to best improve things, rather than argue that anything and everything that can ever be attempted will fail. This article is a good example. The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done. My last question for you is this. Let's say that everything that Thomas Sowell espouses is implemented tomorrow. Will Black people be better off?

Your counter argument/example doesn't refute the concept of "trade-offs", it enforces it because you're using the term solution to mean the exact same thing as the term trade-offs. A solution, in the way Sowell defines it, is something that has no downside, while a trade-off does.

Think about your example for a minute; the trade-off there is obvious, ending slavery means the loss of free labor for slave owners which motivated them to go to war that cost lives on both sides. The parties who wanted to end slavery could not achieve that goal and also prevent slave owners from losing that labor thus prompting war, they had to make a trade off, because there was NO SOLUTION on how to achieve A without B occurring. But to the parties who wanted the institution to end, the benefits out weighed the cost.

In more simple terms, trade offs are derived from how reality fundamentally works. Every decision you make on what to do with your time is coming at the cost of NOT getting to do something else. Life is process of decisions based on trade-offs. When I respond to your post, that comes at the cost of missing out on an infinite amount of possible activities.

Relating this concept back to Thomas Sowell again, he would say, instead of being focused on utopianism, perfect equality, or policies with no downsides, we should be focused on taking the most gain for the least loss. This is the same logic on how to "improve/better society" that you mention. So if you are asking me, "Will Black people be better off" under someone who works under this premise of how the world functions, my answer is, YES.

 

[ahdsend]

 

[MeachTheMonster]

ironic. You claim the mans argument is false, without actually presenting an argument for why that is. But it is what it is, I just wanted to clarify the man's positions because I strongly felt ppl were misinterpreting his stance

The information is readily available, but the onus isn't on me to disprove something that's never been proven.

 

[ahdsend]

You make a lot of good points but the real question you have to answer is this. Would Blacks be better or worse off if there was still segregation. It is very easy to point to all of the issues that still remain in terms of African-Americans getting full equality but do you think African-Americans would be better or worse off if Jim Crow was still the law of the land. Yes segregation still exist in a de facto sense, but if your argument is that African Americans would be better off if we still had to go colored bathrooms, and colored water fountains, and were prevented from getting jobs in the dominant society I completely disagree you.

You should go and read some memoirs by some famous African-Americans writers. During the time of segregation, African-Americans would routinely die from injuries that could be prevented because White hospitals would turn them away. I was reading Langston Hughes' memoir and he talked about how when he was at Hampton reciting his poems, the school had gotten news that one of the recently graduated football players was killed by a mob because he parked in the White only parking lot.

This is MLK talking about the effects of segregation, "Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say,wait...when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored";

It is very easy to sit and type on your keyboard about how the ending of segregation caused all of these problems for the Black community, but the reality is that because segregation and Jim Crow was so degrading and humiliating it had to be the first thing to be attacked and done away with. What you don't mention in your post, but I will mention now, is that back in the time of Jim Crow, most African-Americans believed that they really were second class citizens. Go and read Andrew Young's memoir "An Easy Burden" he talks about how many African-Americans in New Orleans refused to go to his dad's dental practice (believing that a Black dentist must be inferior), until his dad treated a white man. Read "Black Like Me." You speak about the overt segregation of yesterday like it's equivalent to covert segregation today. It's not. People like Dr. King and Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael and Rap Brown were the exception not the rule. The majority of African-Americans back then were ashamed of being Black.

So are things imperfect yes, is there covert segregation yes, are there two separate laws for Black and White Americans yes, but things are much much better than they use to be. And when you shyt on the accomplishments generations that have come before us you kill our martyrs twice. Medgar Evers and Dr. King and Malcolm X wanted a world where there kids would not be ashamed of being Black they accomplished that. Now it's our generations turn to carry the ball forward. Let's not waste our time and energy fighting the battles of yesterday because the past is written in stone. Rather lets discuss the best way forward.

best way forward is self empowerment and independently functioning communities

we gotta learn from past mistakes

its like how claud anderson or amos wilson talked about..


there aint no other option at this point... if there is we wanna hear it

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Of course you would come in and post a garbage c00n ass Thomas Sowell video.

There is no life quality index measure that would indicate that black life was of a higher quality pre-1965 than it is today. There was more poverty, less well-paying jobs, no social safety net, unequal access to public resources like schools, hospitals, etc., high school graduation rates were awful, loan discrimination, redlining, only 3% of black people graduated from college, police brutality wasn't a national outrage it was a given part of black life, lynching was still going on and sundown towns were prevalent all over the country, and in the most progressive locales you could still be arrested, beat up or killed for walking too far and crossing an imaginary line out of your designated ghetto. There was no freedom or agency to go wherever you want and do whatever you think might make you happy.

There isn't one black person who lived in the Jim Crow days that wouldn't trade places with us today.

There IS data that does correlate to quality of life issues..he touched on that in the video ...I cant deal with this topic here in a serous manner..TLR is too much of an echo chamber for fact resistant low information militancy ...enjoy your daps and props ...perhaps we shall revisit this topic at a future time.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

The information is readily available, but the onus isn't on me to disprove something that's never been proven.

If you feel that way, than fair enough.

But just out of curiosity, are you implying the data collected measuring black crime trends, faithlessness, and employment throughout the last century is false? Or, the whole theory about wealth and income outcomes being determined largely by a groups cultural values is false?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

If you feel that way, than fair enough.

But just out of curiosity, are you implying the data collected measuring black crime trends, faithlessness, and employment throughout the last century is false?

No, it's not false. By the data, in every measurable category black people are better off.

Or, the whole theory about wealth and income outcomes being determined largely by a groups cultural values is false?

The data says "culture" has nothing to do with economic achievement

 

[yyy]

ironic. You claim the mans argument is false, without actually presenting an argument for why that is. But it is what it is, I just wanted to clarify the man's positions because I strongly felt ppl were misinterpreting his stance.


>All Sowell does is echo white supremacist positions

I honestly stopped reading right here. Based on this alone, I can clearly see that there would be no reason for us to converse on this subject.



Yes, that was the point. I wanted to clear up the strawmans being made, not post my personal opinion.



The flaw in your analysis is that you are under the premise that the Government use of heavy taxation and redistribution from it is responsible for America's middle-class growth in income in the mid 20th century not free markets, which is leading you to conclude that the Conservative argument about Gov't is either wrong and they don't know it, or they are pursing their own self-interest by promoting a lie.

Personally, I always find this argument really odd, because this is testable. if B follows from A, than we should expect were there is more of A that there will be more of B. In the case of Gov't programs, we can look at the results of FHA, HUD, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Community Reinvestment Act, Social Security, Medicare, Student Loan Programs, Obamacare/ACA, Earned Income Tax Credit, Unemployment Insurance Program and more and reach a conclusion if, in fact, that B follows from A. Not only that, but America isn't the only place in history were these hypothesis could be tested. Results produce by Gov't planning has been observed and argued for decades.



Do a google research on his opinions about Gov't subsidies and voucher/tax schemes to help parents have more decision making power in their children's education. He has put out a ton of information regarding his positions on a multitude of topics and explains better than I could on, off the cuff, in a forum post.



Your counter argument/example doesn't refute the concept of "trade-offs", it enforces it because you're using the term solution to mean the exact same thing as the term trade-offs. A solution, in the way Sowell defines it, is something that has no downside, while a trade-off does.

Think about your example for a minute; the trade-off there is obvious, ending slavery means the loss of free labor for slave owners which motivated them to go to war that cost lives on both sides. The parties who wanted to end slavery could not achieve that goal and also prevent slave owners from losing that labor thus prompting war, they had to make a trade off, because there was NO SOLUTION on how to achieve A without B occurring. But to the parties who wanted the institution to end, the benefits out weighed the cost.

In more simple terms, trade offs are derived from how reality fundamentally works. Every decision you make on what to do with your time is coming at the cost of NOT getting to do something else. Life is process of decisions based on trade-offs. When I respond to your post, that comes at the cost of missing out on an infinite amount of possible activities.

Relating this concept back to Thomas Sowell again, he would say, instead of being focused on utopianism, perfect equality, or policies with no downsides, we should be focused on taking the most gain for the least loss. This is the same logic on how to "improve/better society" that you mention. So if you are asking me, "Will Black people be better off" under someone who works under this premise of how the world functions, my answer is, YES.

Solid post. But I'm reminded of the phrase that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger created, realpolitik. Realpolitik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In theory I could agree with Thomas Sowell, but in theory I could agree with Karl Marx. In practice Thomas Sowell's notion of economics goes out the window and we are left in the real world. And I can tell you that no African-American I know is willing to settle for anything less than full equality. Probably the biggest irony in Thomas Sowell's thinking is that our country was founded on the notion of utopianism and perfect equality. We revolted against one of the strongest Country's in the world at the time over a small amount of taxes. Thomas Sowell would have probably said at the time that that was not a smart trade off.

Also I find it ironic that when it comes to Black people and equality we are patronized and told to stop thinking about "utopianism" and "perfect equality" like we are the one's who came up with the ideas. It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote that "All men are created equal" not black people. It was Patrick Henry who said, "Give me liberty or give me death" not Black people. It was John F. Kennedy who said that Black people would stop being second class citizens not Black people. It was Lyndon Johnson who said in congress, "We shall overcome" not Black people. The reality is that Black America has been getting there cues on how to act from White America. And it is the height of hypocrisy and racism to tell black people to stop talking about utopianism and perfect equality when the only thing that really unites Americans is the notion of American Exceptionalism.
American exceptionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas. The first is that the history of the United States is inherently different from other nations.[2] In this view, American exceptionalism stems from its emergence from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation"[3] and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy and laissez-faire for business. This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism."[4] Second is the idea that the US has a unique mission to transform the world. As Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg address (1863), Americans have a duty to see that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Third is the sense that its history and its mission give the United States a superiority over other nations.

So how about this, maybe before you tell Black people, the people who caught hell since the founding of this country, to stop talking about perfect equality you tell non-black Americans to give up the notion of American Exceptionalism. It's emblematic of our countries long and tragic history with race that African-Americans are told to temper their expectations and dreams while the rest of America continues to live in bliss. It is a true statement to say that the American Dream is at the expense of African-Americans.

 

[Gravity]

You make a lot of good points but the real question you have to answer is this. Would Blacks be better or worse off if there was still segregation. It is very easy to point to all of the issues that still remain in terms of African-Americans getting full equality but do you think African-Americans would be better or worse off if Jim Crow was still the law of the land. Yes segregation still exist in a de facto sense, but if your argument is that African Americans would be better off if we still had to go colored bathrooms, and colored water fountains, and were prevented from getting jobs in the dominant society I completely disagree you.

My position is that the bathroom/water fountain shyt doesn't matter. The fake integration hasn't helped blacks whatsoever. Alleviating discrimination in the public sector systems is what benefits blacks, but the alleviation of systematic discrimination has been a mirage. Jim Crow is still the law of the land, the rules are just unwritten while whites deny that they exist.

You should go and read some memoirs by some famous African-Americans writers. During the time of segregation, African-Americans would routinely die from injuries that could be prevented because White hospitals would turn them away. I was reading Langston Hughes' memoir and he talked about how when he was at Hampton reciting his poems, the school had gotten news that one of the recently graduated football players was killed by a mob because he parked in the White only parking lot.

This is MLK talking about the effects of segregation, "Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say,wait...when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored";

I've read probably read more than you will read in your lifetime. You didn't say anything that refutes my point here. A public hospital refusing medical care to a black person in need or a government judicial system failing to protect black citizens from white terrorists isn't the same thing as a private restaurant not serving blacks. So called integration hasn't done anything to alleviate white systematic racism and discrimination. White institutions private and public still discriminate against blacks. There are still sun-down towns that aren't safe for blacks to stop in. While hospitals can't come out and overtly refuse to care for blacks, they still find ways to discriminate against blacks and ensure white supremacy. You're talking about bad segregation was as if integration solved any of those issues.

It is very easy to sit and type on your keyboard about how the ending of segregation caused all of these problems for the Black community, but the reality is that because segregation and Jim Crow was so degrading and humiliating it had to be the first thing to be attacked and done away with. What you don't mention in your post, but I will mention now, is that back in the time of Jim Crow, most African-Americans believed that they really were second class citizens. Go and read Andrew Young's memoir "An Easy Burden" he talks about how many African-Americans in New Orleans refused to go to his dad's dental practice (believing that a Black dentist must be inferior), until his dad treated a white man. Read "Black Like Me." You speak about the overt segregation of yesterday like it's equivalent to covert segregation today. It's not. People like Dr. King and Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael and Rap Brown were the exception not the rule. The majority of African-Americans back then were ashamed of being Black.

So are things imperfect yes, is there covert segregation yes, are there two separate laws for Black and White Americans yes, but things are much much better than they use to be. And when you shyt on the accomplishments generations that have come before us you kill our martyrs twice. Medgar Evers and Dr. King and Malcolm X wanted a world where there kids would not be ashamed of being Black they accomplished that. Now it's our generations turn to carry the ball forward. Let's not waste our time and energy fighting the battles of yesterday because the past is written in stone. Rather lets discuss the best way forward.

This basically proves that you didn't read or understand what I said. I didn't say that the end of segregation caused all of the problems in the black community, I debunked the myth that it helped to solve any problems in the black community. Integration was a con game that actually deflected from the real problem which is white supremacy. Things aren't much better and you c00ns who keep telling that lie are part of the problem.

 

[havoc]

@No_bammer_weed , I see you homie. Drop your opinion on this thread, breh.

 

[yyy]

My position is that the bathroom/water fountain shyt doesn't matter. The fake integration hasn't helped blacks whatsoever. Alleviating discrimination in the public sector systems is what benefits blacks, but the alleviation of systematic discrimination has been a mirage. Jim Crow is still the law of the land, the rules are just unwritten while whites deny that they exist.

I've read probably read more than you will read in your lifetime. You didn't say anything that refutes my point here. A public hospital refusing medical care to a black person in need or a government judicial system failing to protect black citizens from white terrorists isn't the same thing as a private restaurant not serving blacks. So called integration hasn't done anything to alleviate white systematic racism and discrimination. White institutions private and public still discriminate against blacks. There are still sun-down towns that aren't safe for blacks to stop in. While hospitals can't come out and overtly refuse to care for blacks, they still find ways to discriminate against blacks and ensure white supremacy. You're talking about bad segregation was as if integration solved any of those issues.

This basically proves that you didn't read or understand what I said. I didn't say that the end of segregation caused all of the problems in the black community, I debunked the myth that it helped to solve any problems in the black community. Integration was a con game that actually deflected from the real problem which is white supremacy. Things aren't much better and you c00ns who keep telling that lie are part of the problem.

It's fascinating to talk to you. Most people that read are humble, knowing that there is way more information in this world than they could ever hope to know. It's why Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him." You on the other hand, you're arrogant. Not a good look. More importantly though, the reality is that the majority of African-Americans agree with me not you. You are so deluded that you probably see Dr. King as the problem and your enemy. I can hear now, "If only they killed Dr. King and Medgar Evers sooner, Black people would be better off. Those c00ns ruined it for all of us." You may talk a good game, but your nothing but talk. Following your line of reasoning the only recourse for African-Americans is to start a civil war lol. And I don't know a single African-American who would follow you down that path. So how about this, you keep your ideological purity and your haughtiness and your self-righteousness and me and the other Black people like me will continue to improve things.

And I would be remiss if I didn't give you the opportunity, so seeing how you know so much more than me please tell me how you would plan on achieving equality for African-Americans. Would your first step be to team up with the KKK and try to reinstitute Jim Crow and segregation.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

You can most certainly make the argument that were worse off now than we were before integration.

 

[Free White & 21]

I see the usual suspects of dumb, c00n nikkas in here dapping that graph (which you don't even understand).

Yall only get half a bar

 

[NERO]

"Because, um welfare and integration and (some shyt about single mothers and feminism)."

Who came up with that dumb shyt?

Now post the OOW birth and incarceration rates. Of course if you take the unemployed and unemployable and throw them in prison for 20x the amount of time whites get (as was often the case with crack vs. powder cocaine) you "poverty rate" will go down. I would be much interested to see those charts boss.