Texas athletes petitioning University to replace "The Eyes of Texas" and to no longer require athletes to sing it

[Apex73 313]

1 minute ago, stork642 said:

I think people are absolutely listening like maybe never before.  I don’t have a dispute with the list except for the Eyes because I question how getting rid of it truly affects meaningful change for better.  Change for change sake is not change for the better.  My other question would be if everything on the list is agreed on and done how does that help eradicate police brutality against African Americans?  Isn’t that what we are taking about?  When this unfortunately happens again, and it will, what will the next list of demands be and will those have a true positive affect on ridding our nation of racism and police brutality?  If I thought theses things would really help rid us of these terrible atrocities I would say absolutely let’s do it but these seem very symbolic and without true measures we will be in the same place when this happens again.  But I understand it’s much easier to change the name of a building or change a song than to come up with real solutions.  But the former makes everyone feel like something is getting done but is it helping to actually solve the problem?

Because they only see the low hanging fruit to go after.  The bigger problems often get ignored and it turns into a ridiculous race debate to deflect the actual problem that politicians and corporations have been screwing around the American working class for a long time and they want to keep it that way.  The best way to do that is to try to racially divide your working class with a narrative that people can pick a side on.  Because they know the real power would be a united working class they would be forced to negotiate with.  Deflects the shit off you so you can continue to operate your corrupt political game.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

4 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I provided a link 

and your link is broke ,bro

Edited June 14, 2020 by SwanderedTalent

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

reasons for arguing about Irish-Americans self-identifying? your response to me saying "Irish self identification is an asinine sidebar" is "DERP here's an article on it"....?

Look at your comment I quoted you fucking jackass. Are you really that illiterate? You made comments about fatherless black homes.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

Just now, Patricio Swayze said:

Look at your comment 

Goddamnit learn to read. GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT I RESPONDED TO. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

and your link is broke ,bro

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=uclf

Or go read the one Twicehorn provided.

[williemackgarza 1826]

The statues and buildings? Fuck it change em.

But a song? Really??

Any list of names of the athletes that support this?

What does mama vaughns say?

Oh and im a mexican american or mexican, get ouuta here with thst latino or latin bs.

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, stork642 said:

I think people are absolutely listening like maybe never before.  I don’t have a dispute with the list except for the Eyes because I question how getting rid of it truly affects meaningful change for better.  Change for change sake is not change for the better.  My other question would be if everything on the list is agreed on and done how does that help eradicate police brutality against African Americans?  Isn’t that what we are taking about?  When this unfortunately happens again, and it will, what will the next list of demands be and will those have a true positive affect on ridding our nation of racism and police brutality?  If I thought theses things would really help rid us of these terrible atrocities I would say absolutely let’s do it but these seem very symbolic and without true measures we will be in the same place when this happens again.  But I understand it’s much easier to change the name of a building or change a song than to come up with real solutions.  But the former makes everyone feel like something is getting done but is it helping to actually solve the problem?

Doing away with symbols of racial oppression is extremely important insofar as those symbols are no longer normalized. When they are illuminated for what they represent, they become profane.

[Alien Octopus 630]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Doing away with symbols of racial oppression is extremely important insofar as those symbols are no longer normalized. When they are illuminated for what they represent, they become profane.

Mao did the same in the cultural revolution, even used your same rhetoric.

[RomaVicta 30500]

36 minutes ago, Apex73 said:

Go look at the videos from the protests a few years ago.  They have protesters screaming pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon.  And What do we want? Dead Cops!  When do we want them?  Now!  For Christ sake the FBI classified them as a domestic terrorist group a few years ago.  I was at the protest demonstration in Dallas when the sniper guy (who is unrelated to the movement) started unloading on cops and at that movement they were screaming similar things.  At the very least they incite violence.

So, you really don't have any real evidence to back up the claim I negged. Let's have some fun, shall we?

Quote

They have protesters screaming pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon.  And What do we want? Dead Cops!  When do we want them?  Now!

You don't have anything like a statement from BLM just an angry chant from part of a crowd. Strike one!

Quote

For Christ sake the FBI classified them as a domestic terrorist group a few years ago

I googled "FBI classifies Black Lives Matter as terrorist." From the raving liberal rag Foreign Policy (2017):

As white supremacists prepared to descend on Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, the FBI warned about a new movement that was violent, growing, and racially motivated. Only it wasn’t white supremacists; it was “black identity extremists.”

Amid a rancorous debate over whether the Trump administration has downplayed the threat posed by white supremacist groups, the FBI’s counterterrorism division has declared that black identity extremists pose a growing threat of premeditated violence against law enforcement.

...

The report, dated Aug. 3 — just nine days before the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned deadly — appears to be the first known reference to “black identity extremists” as a movement. But former government officials and legal experts said no such movement exists, and some expressed concern that the term is part of a politically motivated effort to find an equivalent threat to white supremacists.

A former senior counterterrorism and intelligence official from the Department of Homeland Security who reviewed the document at FP’s request expressed shock at the language.

“This is a new umbrella designation that has no basis,” the former official said. “There are civil rights and privacy issues all over this.”

First, the FBI doesn't name BLM. Second, we have experts saying such a movement (BIE) doesn't even exist. Third, experts say that the designation was likely made to "to find an equivalent threat to white supremacists." Swing and miss. Strike two!

Quote

I was at the protest demonstration in Dallas when the sniper guy (who is unrelated to the movement) started unloading on cops and at that movement they were screaming similar things.  At the very least they incite violence.

[edit:I forgot to point out that you admit the sniper has nothing to do with BLM while simultaneously trying to blame them for the horrible shooting.]

Here is the Black Lives Matter comment on the sniper followed by a typical tweet from a BLM follower. From here.

Further, here's a snip from USA Today. See how accusing BLM of responsibility for violence was used as a way to discredit them. It worked then. Similar attempts now are not working so well. 

Leaders of the movement were quick to condemn the slaying of the officers who were killed during a Black Lives Matter protest of this week's fatal police shootings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La., and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minn., two black men whose disturbing encounters with police, filmed by witnesses, had stoked anger throughout the country.

BLM backers said efforts to assign blame for the gunman's actions to an entire movement were dangerous and irresponsible.

“What we did last night was a peaceful protest,” said Dominique Alexander, who heads the Next Generation Action Network and helped organize the Dallas protest, told USA TODAY. “What we were doing as activists was pushing our government to do what was right to address the issues (surrounding police brutality), so more innocent lives are not taken in America.”

Strike three!

So please explain:

• Your insistence that you are better informed than those you argue against.
• Your in-depth conversations with persons of color.
• The curious pattern your posts have in common with the voices of ignorance and/or white supremacy.

Grow a conscience. Abandon the lies.

Edited June 14, 2020 by RomaVicta

[David Dennison 19441]

6 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

Mao did the same in the cultural revolution, even used your same rhetoric.

Christians do the same with pornography.

Also, no one is suggesting you can't sing the Eyes of Texas whenever you want upon fear of imprisonment. *Insert slippery slope rhetoric here*

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by David Dennison

[Bojack 2087]

How many of our fans that go to the games actually care about The Eyes of Texas?  I feel like it's usually more people heading for the exit than singing and that's among the people that went to the game and stayed until the end.

[RomaVicta 30500]

35 minutes ago, 927 E. 41st said:

Nice job, you tried to remain "inclusive" while trying to paint me as something I'm not. I've been respectful of your views I would expect the same of you.

Back to the point, I don't see "the Eyes" the same way you do (not that you would like to be inclusive of my view). "A stick in a disgraceful quilt" clever, but untrue. And yes, I would gladly stop singing it if doing so would change anything or save a single life.

It won't, unhappy people will always be unhappy. Nothing you do will change that.

Rooster Andrews drew the logo and he gladly played on a segregated team. To me that seems equally as damning  as this gossamer thin case against "the eyes". BTW I fully support anyone that doesn't want to sing it for any reason. 

 

I don't know, you seem to be saying the shoe fits pretty well. Also, inclusive doesn't mean including malignant players. You're right, I can't declare you malignant as I don't know you very well.

I do see contradiction in your statement about giving up the song and your declaration that no reason could ever exist for you to do so. Do you not see the contradiction and what it implies?

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, RomaVicta said:

I don't know, you seem to be saying the shoe fits pretty well. Also, inclusive doesn't mean including malignant players. You're right, I can't declare you malignant as I don't know you very well.

I do see contradiction in your statement about giving up the song and your declaration that no reason could ever exist for you to do so. Do you not see the contradiction and what it implies?

You do not have to give up the song if you do not want to.

[Slacks 7021]

Then you haven't really read what I said or interpreted it incorrectly.  I never said the system doesn't have problems in fact I said we needed to address those but the idea that systemic racism is the biggest problem facing the community I disagree with.  Btw you don't speak for all black people.  There are plenty of intelligent well spoken black people that agree with me too.  What mentalities still exist that is holding you back by in large?  And I don't mean the few racist individuals you can bring up.  I'm talking about actual legislation or laws that are racist with intent.  Show me that and I will agree.  

do you disagree that realities of today were intentionally created and perpetuated over several generations?

or do you disagree that the system worked this well?

racism is the root cause of the issues you brought up.

but i can read between your lines. you hadn't truly been educated on how we got to where we are right now.


i wish I wasn't on a phone... I'd lay out American history and walk you through slavery, laws, harassment, death, slaughter, theft, etc...

then you'd deny the significance history on today... I've been in this conversation before... it ends with you asking me how i was able to break out of the cycle, blah blah blah anecdotal praise for me and a few of your “well spoken" associates.

All the 'real' issues you mention are correct.. absolutely. but you cannot, in my presence, attempt to disassociate the historical basis that intentionally created and perpetuated the issues.

"pull yourself up by your bootstraps..."

"but you may not obtain boots... or family... or knowledge... or financial means... or property... ... "

"but that (legally) ended 40 years ago... you're free now."



i don't even know why I'm engaging in the conversation on surlyshaggyhornfans... again...

[mdmost 43850]

8 minutes ago, Bojack said:

How many of our fans that go to the games actually care about The Eyes of Texas?  I feel like it's usually more people heading for the exit than singing and that's among the people that went to the game and stayed until the end.

It's also sung at the beginning before the game starts. 

[Alien Octopus 630]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Christians do the same with pornography.

Also, no one is suggesting you can't sing the Eyes of Texas whenever you want upon fear of imprisonment. *Insert slippery slope rhetoric here*

 

As do Jews, Muslims and many other faith based organizations. Pornography exploits the weakest and most damaged/abused of society. Should we start a fund for those poor souls who denigrate themselves and make others money and happy,  funnel it through the democratic party machine in the name  of improving society? We can call it compassionate or whatever eases the consciensce. 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

26 minutes ago, Apex73 said:

Because they only see the low hanging fruit to go after.  The bigger problems often get ignored and it turns into a ridiculous race debate to deflect the actual problem that politicians and corporations have been screwing around the American working class for a long time and they want to keep it that way.  The best way to do that is to try to racially divide your working class with a narrative that people can pick a side on.  Because they know the real power would be a united working class they would be forced to negotiate with.  Deflects the shit off you so you can continue to operate your corrupt political game.

And suppress low wage Americans with a glass ceiling. Cheap labor = big profit. As long as there is a never ending supply their is no reason to elevate. 

[mdmost 43850]

23 minutes ago, williemackgarza said:

 

What does mama vaughns say?

 

Something fairly reasonable. And to me it boils down to listening to what they have to say. If you value seeing them on the field, and frankly fuck off about the losing shit as you're all still here and still interested in UT football, then listen to what they have to say right now off the field. 

[Kevin O’Shea 279]

16 minutes ago, Bojack said:

How many of our fans that go to the games actually care about The Eyes of Texas?  I feel like it's usually more people heading for the exit than singing and that's among the people that went to the game and stayed until the end.

About everyone stays for it after wins 

[RomaVicta 30500]

4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

It's also sung at the beginning before the game starts. 

I love the song. I stay at the end of lopsided games in away stadiums to raise my horns and sing it. 

I went to a bridal shower (co-ed) that thankfully was held at the Moontower down on Manchaca. I and another Longhorn went to watch Case McCoy beat OU on the outdoor TV there. I bet that myself and the woman from the shower were the only UT grads of the few dozen watching.

A rough looking woman in a Harley T-shirt stood up to lead us all in the Eyes of Texas. I was genuinely moved to see the Longhorns embraced by all. We are the flagship and every Texan has a claim on UT. The song has always been a unifier in my experience.

Now, I learn something new. Maybe it's not a unifier.

I'd prefer to keep the song and have it inclusive. If we can't do that, then I can let it go. Not because it's trivial to me but because the purpose of the song will be nullified. 

I want all Longhorns feeling united. Period. (Well, except for the malign. See above.)

[RomaVicta 30500]

5 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Something fairly reasonable. And to me it boils down to listening to what they have to say. If you value seeing them on the field, and frankly fuck off about the losing shit as you're all still here and still interested in UT football, then listen to what they have to say right now off the field. 

It really is that simple. 

[Lhorn 5080]

30 minutes ago, williemackgarza said:

The statues and buildings? Fuck it change em.

But a song? Really??

Any list of names of the athletes that support this?

What does mama vaughns say?

Oh and im a mexican american or mexican, get ouuta here with thst latino or latin bs.

How do you feel about "Latinx?"  j/k

[Alien Octopus 630]

11 minutes ago, Snacks said:

 

 

do you disagree that realities of today were intentionally created and perpetuated over several generations?

or do you disagree that the system worked this well?

racism is the root cause of the issues you brought up.

but i can read between your lines. you hadn't truly been educated on how we got to where we are right now.


i wish I wasn't on a phone... I'd lay out American history and walk you through slavery, laws, harassment, death, slaughter, theft, etc...

then you'd deny the significance history on today... I've been in this conversation before... it ends with you asking me how i was able to break out of the cycle, blah blah blah anecdotal praise for me and a few of your “well spoken" associates.

All the 'real' issues you mention are correct.. absolutely. but you cannot, in my presence, attempt to disassociate the historical basis that intentionally created and perpetuated the issues.

"pull yourself up by your bootstraps..."

"but you may not obtain boots... or family... or knowledge... or financial means... or property... ... "

"but that (legally) ended 40 years ago... you're free now."



i don't even know why I'm engaging in the conversation on surlyshaggyhornfans... again...

 

Can you go ahead and layout slavery of Europeans while you are at it? Tell me about indentured slaves, their emancipation enfranchisement the effect their emancipation had on elections and slavery in the US. Go ahead and contrast that today’s events, maybe look at the efforts to give felons the vote (see Florida). It is a proud history lesson.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

How do you feel about "Latinx?"  j/k

I’m Latino and can’t stand the latinx label.

[Longhorn Fever 275]

57 minutes ago, Apex73 said:

Then you haven't really read what I said or interpreted it incorrectly.  I never said the system doesn't have problems in fact I said we needed to address those but the idea that systemic racism is the biggest problem facing the community I disagree with.  Btw you don't speak for all black people.  There are plenty of intelligent well spoken black people that agree with me too.  What mentalities still exist that is holding you back by in large?  And I don't mean the few racist individuals you can bring up.  I'm talking about actual legislation or laws that are racist with intent.  Show me that and I will agree.  

Since they agree with you, are they a credit to their race?

[Alien Octopus 630]

1 minute ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I’m Latino and can’t stand the latinx label.

I am hispanic and don’t like any labels.

[Apex73 313]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

So, you really don't have any real evidence to back up the claim I negged. Let's have some fun, shall we?

You don't have anything like a statement from BLM just an angry chant from part of a crowd. Strike one!

I googled "FBI classifies Black Lives Matter as terrorist." From the raving liberal rag Foreign Policy (2017):

As white supremacists prepared to descend on Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, the FBI warned about a new movement that was violent, growing, and racially motivated. Only it wasn’t white supremacists; it was “black identity extremists.”

Amid a rancorous debate over whether the Trump administration has downplayed the threat posed by white supremacist groups, the FBI’s counterterrorism division has declared that black identity extremists pose a growing threat of premeditated violence against law enforcement.

...

The report, dated Aug. 3 — just nine days before the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned deadly — appears to be the first known reference to “black identity extremists” as a movement. But former government officials and legal experts said no such movement exists, and some expressed concern that the term is part of a politically motivated effort to find an equivalent threat to white supremacists.

A former senior counterterrorism and intelligence official from the Department of Homeland Security who reviewed the document at FP’s request expressed shock at the language.

“This is a new umbrella designation that has no basis,” the former official said. “There are civil rights and privacy issues all over this.”

First, the FBI doesn't name BLM. Second, we have experts saying such a movement (BIE) doesn't even exist. Third, experts say that the designation was likely made to "to find an equivalent threat to white supremacists." Swing and miss. Strike two!

Here is the Black Lives Matter comment on the sniper followed by a typical tweet from a BLM follower. From here.

Further, here's a snip from USA Today. See how accusing BLM of responsibility for violence was used as a way to discredit them. It worked then. Similar attempts now are not working so well. 

Leaders of the movement were quick to condemn the slaying of the officers who were killed during a Black Lives Matter protest of this week's fatal police shootings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La., and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minn., two black men whose disturbing encounters with police, filmed by witnesses, had stoked anger throughout the country.

BLM backers said efforts to assign blame for the gunman's actions to an entire movement were dangerous and irresponsible.

“What we did last night was a peaceful protest,” said Dominique Alexander, who heads the Next Generation Action Network and helped organize the Dallas protest, told USA TODAY. “What we were doing as activists was pushing our government to do what was right to address the issues (surrounding police brutality), so more innocent lives are not taken in America.”

Strike three!

So please explain:

• Your insistence that you are better informed than those you argue against.
• Your in-depth conversations with persons of color.
• The curious pattern your posts have in common with the voices of ignorance and/or white supremacy.

Grow a conscience. Abandon the lies.

Well I guess you just have me all figured out huh?  Lol.  Sounds like you cherrypicked the data to support your narrative.  I guess It just clears it up because they said we don't advocate violence after 5 cops were killed.  We should just believe that.  And just because the sniper said he had no affiliation with the BLM group doesn't mean he didn't.  And just because black lives matter makes a statement saying they don't support that doesn't mean they don't.  I guess you would believe David Duke if he said he fully supported black rights.  Not saying he did but I'm not saying he didn't either.  I have the videos of the blm protest chants that incite violence but I can't figure out how to link them to here.  They are out there though.  AlI you have to do is type in black lives matter chants.  I agree that I was wrong when I said the FBI classified them as a domestic terrorist group. Saw that on a video without properly fact checking it.  I will give you one example of and in depth conversation Ive had with friend of mine who is black.  He shares the same points of view as me.  The only point of contention is he believes if there is an argument for systemic racism it would be how the schooling system works which I don't 100 percent disagree with that either. I'm not like trying to draw a line in the sand and say none of these concerns are valid. I'm saying theres a middle ground between the extremes and those are the people who seem to properly communicate.  The idea that you can equate anything Ive said to white supremacy is laughable at best.  Get off your moral high ground and please fall on your own sword of self righteousness.

 

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

38 minutes ago, stork642 said:

  I don’t have a dispute with the list except for the Eyes because I question how getting rid of it truly affects meaningful change for better.  Change for change sake is not change for the better.  My other question would be if everything on the list is agreed on and done how does that help eradicate police brutality against African Americans? 

I think this is the disconnect. You and many others, who happen to be white, don’t see how changing the song affects meaningful change. The black community does believe it will cause meaningful change. They don’t believe a song birthed in a demonstration of hate is what Texas should promote and value. You don’t see it yet. And the fact you can’t see it is really the issue here. For so long, White people can’t see how the world treats black Americans and how it’s unequal to white Americans. 
 

Eradicting police brutality will take police reform. But part of the same problem is the way black Americans are marginalized in the USA. The way they are marginalized at Texas is having buildings dedicated to confederate general that fought to enslave them and song sung meant to mock them. 

[Helobious 9755]

2 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I’m Latino and can’t stand the latinx label.

This. I’d almost take beaner over that placative bullshit.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

“Song sung meant to mock them”

Evidence not in file

Edited June 14, 2020 by ChickenSandwich

[David Dennison 19441]

8 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

I am hispanic and don’t like any labels.

Then don't use them.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

This. I’d almost take beaner over that placative bullshit.

It’s just stupid and makes no sense. Latin based languages have gender. Are the people who insist on using Latinx going to change all the Latin based languages? Haha

Anyways, not to derail the topic...

[Apex73 313]

23 minutes ago, Snacks said:

 

 

do you disagree that realities of today were intentionally created and perpetuated over several generations?

or do you disagree that the system worked this well?

racism is the root cause of the issues you brought up.

but i can read between your lines. you hadn't truly been educated on how we got to where we are right now.


i wish I wasn't on a phone... I'd lay out American history and walk you through slavery, laws, harassment, death, slaughter, theft, etc...

then you'd deny the significance history on today... I've been in this conversation before... it ends with you asking me how i was able to break out of the cycle, blah blah blah anecdotal praise for me and a few of your “well spoken" associates.

All the 'real' issues you mention are correct.. absolutely. but you cannot, in my presence, attempt to disassociate the historical basis that intentionally created and perpetuated the issues.

"pull yourself up by your bootstraps..."

"but you may not obtain boots... or family... or knowledge... or financial means... or property... ... "

"but that (legally) ended 40 years ago... you're free now."



i don't even know why I'm engaging in the conversation on surlyshaggyhornfans... again...

 

I definitely see what you are saying in that its unreasonable to ask someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they are starting so far behind the race that they should just catch up.  That's not what I'm advocating for. But to deny that those are the most important real issues facing the community is lunacy in my opinion.  If you are talking about the historical circumstances in when LBJ inserted legislation for the war on poverty incentivizing black women to not have a father in the home to receive government money then yea that was fucked up.  It incentivizes mothers to have kids out of wedlock and incentivizes fathers to abandon their responsibility.  That creates a huge problem and was absolutely put there by a white government.  You could say that's racist.  I'd say its been the biggest crippler, that and the war on drugs, to the black community since the 60s.  But the idea that America is just as racist now as it was then and is still horribly pressed with systemic racism is pure nonsense.  

[Apex73 313]

21 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

And suppress low wage Americans with a glass ceiling. Cheap labor = big profit. As long as there is a never ending supply their is no reason to elevate. 

Exactly.  But that go's away if we all get on the same page.

[Apex73 313]

13 minutes ago, Longhorn Fever said:

Since they agree with you, are they a credit to their race?

Idk dude I don't think about it in terms like that.  I talk to humans of all races as long as they are rational.  Stop trying to race bait.

[CockadoodleHorn 40]

Now the eyes of Texas is racist, but they have no issues singing to gangsta rap where every other word is the n word.

[Longhorn Fever 275]

Just now, Apex73 said:

Idk dude I don't think about it in terms like that.  I talk to humans of all races as long as they are rational.  Stop trying to race bait.

Wll, dude, just realize that the old well-spoken phrase is race baiting. Perhaps open your eyes to the institutional racism that maybe pervades your conversations with "rational" humans. I am doubting that you can truly see others that disagree with you as rational.

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Now the eyes of Texas is racist, but they have no issues singing to gangsta rap where every other word is the n word.

I am not arguing whether the Eyes of Texas is racist, but your comparison is not the same. Do you understand how linguistic appropriation or reappropriation works? It’s not unlike white people embracing the term redneck with pride.

[David Dennison 19441]

14 minutes ago, Apex73 said:

I definitely see what you are saying in that its unreasonable to ask someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they are starting so far behind the race that they should just catch up.  That's not what I'm advocating for. But to deny that those are the most important real issues facing the community is lunacy in my opinion.  If you are talking about the historical circumstances in when LBJ inserted legislation for the war on poverty incentivizing black women to not have a father in the home to receive government money then yea that was fucked up.  It incentivizes mothers to have kids out of wedlock and incentivizes fathers to abandon their responsibility.  That creates a huge problem and was absolutely put there by a white government.  You could say that's racist.  I'd say its been the biggest crippler, that and the war on drugs, to the black community since the 60s.  But the idea that America is just as racist now as it was then and is still horribly pressed with systemic racism is pure nonsense.  

It also never happened. In 1961 the original law was changed to permit states to extend benefits to families with an unemployed father. Only twenty-five states eventually adopted the change to allow families to receive aid. The reason the law was changed was precisely because legislators were concerned that the program's rules discouraged marriage.

Edited June 14, 2020 by David Dennison

[Apex73 313]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn Fever said:

Wll, dude, just realize that the old well-spoken phrase is race baiting. Perhaps open your eyes to the institutional racism that maybe pervades your conversations with "rational" humans. I am doubting that you can truly see others that disagree with you as rational.

 

I disagree.  Because you can make a distinction between those who are well spoken and intelligent and those who aren't doesn't mean you are race baiting.  That applies to all races obviously.  You look at things so narrowly.

 

[Alien Octopus 630]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

After the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed, the preferred method of controlling black Americans (mainly black men) became the criminal justice system. Even the most minor infractions were used as a pretext to make black people in America criminals.

One could argue the preferred method of controlling black people was welfare, and abortions. We can can sit here and spout a lot of things that push the polarized narrative  but I am pretty sure it comes down to your bank account.  I think if you really want to get down to it, take the race variable out of police stats and look at classism/wealth status as the main variable. 

[Apex73 313]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It also never happened. In 1961 the original law was changed to permit states to extend benefits to families with an unemployed father. Only twenty-five states eventually adopted the change to allow families to receive aid. The reason the law was change was precisely because legislators were concerned that the program's rules discouraged marriage.

LBJ didn't put that policy into place until 1964.  He wasn't even president in 1961.  It absolutely did happen and continues to be one of the biggest problems facing the community today.

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, Alien Octopus said:

One could argue the preferred method of controlling black people was welfare, and abortions. We can can sit here and spout a lot of things that push the polarized narrative  but I am pretty sure it comes down to your bank account.  I think if you really want to get down to it, take the race variable out of police stats and look at classism/wealth status as the main variable. 

Well, welfare laws were originally passed for poor white people. 

[Apex73 313]

3 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

One could argue the preferred method of controlling black people was welfare, and abortions. We can can sit here and spout a lot of things that push the polarized narrative  but I am pretty sure it comes down to your bank account.  I think if you really want to get down to it, take the race variable out of police stats and look at classism/wealth status as the main variable. 

The truth.

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, Apex73 said:

LBJ didn't put that policy into place until 1964.  He wasn't even president in 1961.  It absolutely did happen and continues to be one of the biggest problems facing the community today.

No, he didn't. The law was changed in 1961 to allow families with dependent children to receive aid. It left the issue to the states.

LBJ did not change it back. That is a pernicious myth peddled by the right.

[Stannis 232]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Change doesn’t happen in our country by asking nicely. If it did, the riots, protest, destruction would not be necessary. See Coal Miners Rebellion, Civil Rights Long Hot Summer riots, Stonewall Riots, etc, etc,. 

I've seen this opinion expressed a number of times on this website since the Floyd murder - the idea that violent rioting is the only way to effect change in this country.  It ignores a long history of Supreme Court equal protection and due process cases expanding and affirming the rights of black Americans in the context of voting, marriage, housing, education, criminal justice, and more.

As far as I know, in none of the below cases was the majority opinion driven by violent riots.  Rather, the rule of law embedded in our Constitution guided the important changes that came from:

Powell v. Alabama (1932) (affirming the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions brought by a state in the context of black men accused of raping white women)

Smith v. Allwright (1944) (extending voting rights protection in the context of all-white primary elections)

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) (prohibiting racially restrictive housing covenants)

Sweatt v. Painter (1950) (overturning "separate but equal" and laying the foundation for Brown v. Board of Education)

Terry v. Adams (1953) (holding that racial discrimination in primary elections is unconstitutional)

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (holding that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional)

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) (ending public school segregation in the District of Columbia)

NAACP v. Alabama (1958) (protecting the NAACP from unconstitutional subpoenas issued by the state)

Boynton v. Virginia (1960) (holding that racial discrimination in public transportation is illegal)

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) (affirming the right of Americans to peacefully assemble and protest - here in the context of racial civil rights)

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) (extending the Commerce Clause to provide protection to interstate travelers against racial discrimination in lodging)

Evans v. Newton (1966) (expanding equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to public parks)

Loving v. Virginia (1967) (striking down laws banning interracial marriage)

 

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

31 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

“Song sung meant to mock them”

Evidence not in file

Are you taking the position that minstrel songs created for and sung at minstrel shows by white people in black face were not mocking black people?

[Apex73 313]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, he didn't. The law was changed in 1961 to allow families with dependent children to receive aid. It left the issue to the states.

LBJ did not change it back. That is a pernicious myth peddled by the right.

Lol ok troll.  

[Alien Octopus 630]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Well, welfare laws were originally passed for poor white people. 

Not familiar with welfare legislation, but that does not surprise me. Likely having something to do with voting rights and elections.

[ImissWallyPryor 9046]

6 hours ago, Spankytoes said:

She came to this country on a full fashion design scholarship from Russia

She sounds hot.