Racism in America

[sana8410]

Some think Lyndon Johnson was not one of our best presidents.

But Johnson did pass the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that was and is a really big deal.

Today I saw one effect of outlawing dscrimination in education. In 1964 there were 365,000 African American bachelor's degrees awarded. In 2014 5.1 million were awarded.

Imagine how many lives are changed by that!

One more thought; if you think there is no role for government, try to imagine this outcome without government's involvement.

[Lethn]

One more thought; if you think there is no role for government, try to imagine this outcome without government's involvement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnPZ1yuoFIc

[zolace]

Your example, is one explanation of why our friends in the south seem to hate our federal government so much. 

It forces them to stop discriminating, forces them to allow Blacks to vote, and add to that, it allows Black and White folks to marry each other.  Lawdy - no wonder they hate our government so!!

[umair127]

So much to be said about, and for LBJ.  He was a mixed bag of the bad the good and the ugly like every president.  The times shaped him as much as he shaped the times, as president.  But by god, he did get the CRA passed, and that can never be taken away from him.   Or co-opted by Republicans.

[Rigon]

Some think Lyndon Johnson was not one of our best presidents.

But Johnson did pass the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that was and is a really big deal.

Today I saw one effect of outlawing dscrimination in education. In 1964 there were 365,000 African American bachelor's degrees awarded. In 2014 5.1 million were awarded.

Imagine how many lives are changed by that!

One more thought; if you think there is no role for government, try to imagine this outcome without government's involvement.

Some think Lyndon Johnson was not one of our best presidents.

But Johnson did pass the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that was and is a really big deal.

Today I saw one effect of outlawing dscrimination in education. In 1964 there were 365,000 African American bachelor's degrees awarded. In 2014 5.1 million were awarded.

Imagine how many lives are changed by that!

One more thought; if you think there is no role for government, try to imagine this outcome without government's involvement.

[noviapriani]

Some think Lyndon Johnson was not one of our best presidents.

But Johnson did pass the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that was and is a really big deal.

Today I saw one effect of outlawing dscrimination in education. In 1964 there were 365,000 African American bachelor's degrees awarded. In 2014 5.1 million were awarded.

Imagine how many lives are changed by that!

One more thought; if you think there is no role for government, try to imagine this outcome without government's involvement.

Why don't you tell us how hard he worked to get that bill passed . Tell us how he wrote the bill and worked to get his fellow democrats to on board and support it. Tell us all about his valiant effort doc, we'd love to hear it.
http://politicalfray.com/history/2503-republican-roots-1964-civil-rights-act.html

On his deathbed in 1874, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) told a Republican colleague: ?You must take care of the civil rights bill ? my bill, the civil rights bill. Don?t let it fail.? In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP?s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.

Among its provisions, the 1875 Civil Rights Act banned racial discrimination in public accommodations. Sound familiar? Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the 1875 Civil Rights Act would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Clever strategizing had won him the support of most African-American voters, but it took President John Kennedy (D-MA) nearly two years to make good on even one of his promises to them. He refused to attend a dinner commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and turned down Martin Luther King?s invitation to speak at the March on Washington. He did name Thurgood Marshall to the federal bench, but that was to an appeals court in New York, far from the fray in southern states. Kennedy did not honor his campaign promise to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill soon after taking office.

While the Kennedy administration was ignoring its campaign pledges, the Republican minority in Congress introduced several bills to protect the constitutional rights of African-Americans. In January 1963, congressional Republicans introduced a sweeping civil rights bill to enact what Democrat opposition had prevented from being included in the 1957 and 1960 laws. Threatened by this initiative, the president finally acted. Hastily drafted in a single one-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what the GOP had introduced the month before. Many Democrats were preparing a protracted Senate filibuster of this civil rights bill, which was in a committee of the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.
Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader ? not President Lyndon Johnson ? was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.

[skottiejay]

Living in the south I don't see any form of racism at all.

In fact most of the african american people living down here are nicer, and friendlier, and get along with everyone else much better than any other place than I've lived. They are respectful and pleasant. Which up north, they act as if they are entitled (within reason of course) to just about everything. Sure I've met some really nice AM's up north (MERICA) but generally speaking the south doesn't fit that whole image of the place for bigotry and what not anymore.

[Rigon]

If you dems want to take credit for your real efforts on behalf of blacks laud yourselves for trying to get ebonics taught in schools because black children weren't capable of learning English. That about sums up the dems efforts and their attitude, that's why dems keep the welfare rolls filled, to keep the blacks ignorant and voting dumb, I mean dem. If that doesn't send the message look at the New Haven fire fighters lawsuit that claimed the advancement test was racist because not enough blacks could pass the test. I'd love to hear how that test was racist and why blacks aren't allowed to learn the same things whites are.

[Wilikon]

Enforcement Act of 1871 (third act)

On April 20, 1871, at the urging of President Ulysses Grant, Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act. Also known as the third Enforcement Act, the bill was a controversial expansion of federal authority designed to give the federal government additional power to protect voters. The act established penalties in the form of fines and jail time for attempts to deprive citizens of equal protection under the laws and gave the President the authority to use federal troops and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in ensuring that civil rights were upheld.

Founded as a fraternal organization by Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan soon became a paramilitary group devoted to the overthrow of Republican governments in the South and the reassertion of white supremacy. Through murder, kidnapping, and violent intimidation, Klansmen sought to secure Democratic victories in elections by attacking black voters and, less frequently, white Republican leaders.

http://millercenter.org/president/events/04_20

NEGROES WITH GUNS

This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.

How’s that “may issue” gun permit policy working for you?

The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence — including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.

A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high — beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.

But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.

Williams’ repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, “Negroes With Guns.” In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.

As the Klan found out, it’s not so much fun when the rabbit’s got the gun.

The NRA’s proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html

The Democratic Convention of 1924

The Democratic party was an uneasy coalition of diverse elements: Northerners and Southerners, Westerners and Easterners, Catholics and Jews and Protestants, conservative landowners and agrarian radicals, progressives and big city machines, urban cosmopolitans and small-town traditionalists. On one side were defenders of the Ku Klux Klan, prohibition, and fundamentalism. On the other side were northeastern Catholics and Jewish immigrants and their children. A series of issues that bitterly divided the country during the early 1920s were on display at the 1924 Democratic Convention in New York, including prohibition and religious and racial tolerance. The Northeasterners wanted an explicit condemnation of the Ku Klux Klan. The final vote was 546.15 for the Klan, 542.85 against it.

The two leading candidates symbolized a deep cultural divide. Al Smith, New York’s governor, was a Catholic and an opponent of prohibition and was bitterly opposed by Democrats in the South and West. Former Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, a Protestant, defended prohibition and refused to repudiate the Ku Klux Klan, making himself unacceptable to Catholics and Jews in the Northeast.

Newspapers called the convention a “Klanbake,” as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention#KKK_platform_plank



“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fj-E-Yk78M

Etc... Etc...

[Ron~Popeil]

Living in the south I don't see any form of racism at all.

In fact most of the african american people living down here are nicer, and friendlier, and get along with everyone else much better than any other place than I've lived. They are respectful and pleasant. Which up north, they act as if they are entitled (within reason of course) to just about everything. Sure I've met some really nice AM's up north (MERICA) but generally speaking the south doesn't fit that whole image of the place for bigotry and what not anymore.

I lived in the deep south for 4 years. Where I lived there was still a very visible amount of racial tension. There was also a soft prejudice that wasn't spoken but quite clear. The south still has a long way to go in race relations. They can start by getting rid of that stupid confederate flag and ending organizations like "the sons of the confederacy."

[beetcoin]

there is definitely racism that still exists. it's just that you can't be as open about it these days, so probably more closet racists than anything. a lot of people from the south a xenophobic and fear minorities coming in and taking "their country" back. that's what sarah palin meant when she said she wanted to take "OUR country" back.

[skottiejay]

Living in the south I don't see any form of racism at all.

In fact most of the african american people living down here are nicer, and friendlier, and get along with everyone else much better than any other place than I've lived. They are respectful and pleasant. Which up north, they act as if they are entitled (within reason of course) to just about everything. Sure I've met some really nice AM's up north (MERICA) but generally speaking the south doesn't fit that whole image of the place for bigotry and what not anymore.

I lived in the deep south for 4 years. Where I lived there was still a very visible amount of racial tension. There was also a soft prejudice that wasn't spoken but quite clear. The south still has a long way to go in race relations. They can start by getting rid of that stupid confederate flag and ending organizations like "the sons of the confederacy."

Well you are right, there is a lot of tension still. You can see it in the peoples eyes when they cross each other's paths, the nod and then the turn around or the face, or the side eye it's still there. But when I moved down here in November I was expecting MUCH worse than what I got. I agree about getting rid of the confederate flag, I haven't seen it much here and surprisingly I live in a pretty small town right now that everyone knows just about everyone else. Maybe the soft prejudice is what I was talking about before, I don't know I just know it isn't nearly as bad as I thought it'd be.

[Honeypot]

People are made to discriminate. It's not whether you discriminate, but whether you choose to find a common ground and willingly set aside natural differences. For that matter, these days those who rail against 'discrimination' are often the most annoying and pathetic out of them all.

There is nothing wrong with white people or anyone else being suspicious or otherwise on guard when encountering those of difference ethnicity. It is human nature to discriminate and judge, and that in itself is not something that should be called wrong - rather it must be your choices and decisions regarding what the end result is that must be questioned. People rarely in the most honest sense see eye to eye even with their own family members and people of their own race - how the fuck do you expect people to instantly sing kumbaya and who the hell do you think you are to consider yourself a victim? For that matter, it's a given that every individual is inclusive towards their own and that is completely natural. What is now being call 'equality' is nothing more than minorities attempting to maintain their own racial attitudes while claiming any perfectly justified hostility against such attitudes as 'racism'.

There is not so much racism in america as there are too many spoiled children with hidden racial agendas driving their actions. No where is that more prevalent than blacks or other minorities.

Face the fact - America is mainly a european american affair with its roots in europe and its people. Those who are unwilling to respect or acknowledge this fact have no business getting mouthy. What justification does a chinese have to go to india or malaysia, start waving a chinese flag and demanding to be treated like an equal when obviously he doesn't have any inclination of acknowledging any of those respective nations and peoples and clearly has his own racial agenda? Now if you think this is supposed to be 'equality' and 'freedom' you deserve to be violated and raped for that attitude of yours.

No minority living in the west and america has any right to bitch and moan. I have seen racism and oppression. I am a minority in america. I can say for certain that spoiled ass children today need to watch their mouths before thinking they know anything about anyone. In many ways, they act in the most negatively stereotypical american fashion better than any white people i've met: spoiled, soft, naive, and constantly throw shallow tantrums.

Check your privileges, fuckers.

[CryptInvest]

I do not izameriko but looked like it on Discovery about your Nazis. It's a nightmare and laughter. Neo-Nazis are real freaks. Then he was surprised to learn that in America is was his neo-Nazi movement after the war in 1950x

[noviapriani]

I cannot count the times when I was in America that I was stopped by cops for driving while black.  One time they were particularly solicitous for the welfare of my wife (who is blonde) while we were having a discussion about Derrida.

[zolace]

I cannot count the times when I was in America that I was stopped by cops for driving while black.  One time they were particularly solicitous for the welfare of my wife (who is blonde) while we were having a discussion about Derrida.

When progs change their minds it is called evolving. When cons do it it is called flip-flopping. Go figure .I'll bet you are just a shitty driver.

[sana8410]

I cannot count the times when I was in America that I was stopped by cops for driving while black.  One time they were particularly solicitous for the welfare of my wife (who is blonde) while we were having a discussion about Derrida.

When progs change their minds it is called evolving. When cons do it it is called flip-flopping. Go figure .I'll bet you are just a shitty driver.

No figuring required zolace.  Cons don't evolve (unless its backwards, called de-volving) and they don't flip flop.  They just rewrite history, otherwise known as lying.   

[sana8410]

stop racism and make love :-)

yeah , this is the solution.......

[zolace]

I cannot count the times when I was in America that I was stopped by cops for driving while black.  One time they were particularly solicitous for the welfare of my wife (who is blonde) while we were having a discussion about Derrida.

When progs change their minds it is called evolving. When cons do it it is called flip-flopping. Go figure .I'll bet you are just a shitty driver.

No figuring required zolace.  Cons don't evolve (unless its backwards, called de-volving) and they don't flip flop.  They just rewrite history, otherwise known as lying.   

Who progressed???

Neanderthal-human sex bred light skins and infertility

    29 January 2014 by Michael Marshall
    Magazine issue 2954. Subscribe and save
    For similar stories, visit the Neanderthals   , Genetics   and Human Evolution   Topic Guides

IT IS surprising what a little hanky-panky can do. A handful of sexual encounters between humans and Neanderthals made many of us what we are today, affecting both our appearance and our vulnerability to disease. But the genetic legacy left by the Neanderthals also highlights just how different we are from our sister species.

Neanderthals lived in Europe and Asia between about 200,000 and 30,000 years ago. Our species – sometimes dubbed "modern humans" – made it to Eurasia about 65,000 years ago, and so the two species had plenty of time to cosy up. In 2010, geneticists discovered that they had been very close neighbours indeed. They sequenced a Neanderthal genome and discovered it carried genes that also appear in the genomes of people of European and Asian descent: our species must have interbred with Neanderthals.

Now, by studying Neanderthal genes in people alive today, researchers are beginning to appreciate how that interbreeding influenced our species.

In one new study of 1000 human genomes, Sriram Sankararaman and David Reich of Harvard Medical School and colleagues found that Neanderthal DNA is most common in regions of the genome with the greatest genetic variability, making them a prime target for natural selection. While Neanderthal DNA may make up only 1.6 to 1.8 per cent of the Eurasian genome, it punches above its weight in terms of biological impact, says Reich (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature12961).

Joshua Akey and Ben Vernot of the University of Washington in Seattle have analysed the Neanderthal DNA in a further 665 humans (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1245938). Both their study and the Harvard one found a hotspot of Neanderthal ancestry in genes relating to keratin, a fibrous protein found in our hair, skin and nails.

One of the genes, BNC2, is involved in skin pigmentation. That implies that Eurasians owe their paler skins partly to Neanderthals. Light skin is an advantage at higher latitudes because it is more efficient at generating vitamin D from sunlight, so Neanderthal DNA may have helped modern humans to adapt to life outside Africa.

If so, the adaptation took thousands of years to become universal. A third study published this week describes a DNA analysis of one person who lived in Stone Age Europe about 7000 years ago – 40,000 years after any Neanderthal interbreeding. His genes suggest his skin was dark (Nature, doi.org/q74). It may be that the Neanderthal keratin affected early Eurasians' hair instead, perhaps straightening it.

Not all of the Neanderthal genes are beneficial. Sankararaman and Reich found that our Neanderthal inheritance includes several genes that make us susceptible to diseases including type 2 diabetes, lupus and Crohn's disease.

Some of the genes, meanwhile, appear to have led to fertility problems. For instance, Sankararaman found that the X chromosome is almost devoid of Neanderthal DNA. This suggests that most Neanderthal DNA that wound up on the X chromosome made the bearer less fertile – a common occurrence when related but distinct species interbreed – and so it quickly disappeared from the human gene pool. "Neanderthal alleles were swept away," says Sankararaman.

"This underlines that modern humans and Neanderthals are indeed different species," says Fred Spoor of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who was not involved in any of the studies.

The genetic evidence further backs this up. Neanderthal DNA is irregularly spaced through the modern human genome rather than being fully mixed. That implies that interbreeding occurred very rarely. Sankararaman estimates it may have happened just four times.

"But these relatively few matings obviously were an important event in the history of non-Africans," says Reich.

This article appeared in print under the headline "Neanderthal sex, the aftermath"

[sana8410]

Hold on, did you just post something she's hoping will be read as an argument against "inter-breeding"?   With...neaderthals?  You cannot make this kind of entertainment up.  Not even for a $300 Las Vegas ticket.