Brothahorn's Conservative Thread

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think systematic disadvantages exist. Maybe even systematic biases. I don’t think it’s systematic racism. 

Maybe so. I did say systemic bias, not racism, but I'm not sure that it matters. The poster I quoted was essentially denying that systemic bias/disadvantage exists, which is ludicrous.

I think you have to be pretty far off of the right-wing deep end to truly believe in your heart that blacks and other minorities don't face significant disadvantages, largely remnants of slavery and white supremacy in America. I've had good discussions with conservatives about how to best address that, even in disagreement. But believing that it doesn't exist? That's not a serious or respectable ideology.

Edited July 21, 2020 by BradInATX

[Wulaw Horn 19068]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Maybe so. I did say systemic bias, not racism, but I'm not sure that it matters. The poster I quoted was essentially denying that systemic bias/disadvantage exists, which is ludicrous.

I think you have to be pretty far off of the right-wing deep end to truly believe in your heart that blacks and other minorities don't face significant disadvantages, largely remnants of slavery and white supremacy in America.

Yeah- I wasn’t meaning to imply that you said systematic racism- but that’s being thrown around a lot. I think the system, generally, is set up to advantage the haves, disadvantage the have nots and keep everyone in their lane. Minorities are mostly have nots and the system grounds them up at times, but I don’t think that’s because they are minorities, more I think that’s how the system works. 
I went to UT. I went to a top 20 law school  I had classmates that were minorities that got in because of affirmative action and they were... mostly like me!  I don’t see a hand up for the poor kid from Appalachia or Hicksville Texas who is disadvantaged. I see hands up for upper middle class blacks and that doesn’t make sense to me from a “who should get the benefit of the doubt” standpoint. Because I see it as a class struggle more than a race struggle from an institutional perspective. 
I have recalibrated my opinions, somewhat, with the Trump administration because it’s clear that there is more going on there than I’d have thought, but I don’t think it’s systematic 

Like I said, I could well be wrong. 

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah- I wasn’t meaning to imply that you said systematic racism- but that’s being thrown around a lot. I think the system, generally, is set up to advantage the haves, disadvantage the have nots and keep everyone in their lane. Minorities are mostly have nots and the system grounds them up at times, but I don’t think that’s because they are minorities, more I think that’s how the system works. 
I went to UT. I went to a top 20 law school  I had classmates that were minorities that got in because of affirmative action and they were... mostly like me!  I don’t see a hand up for the poor kid from Appalachia or Hicksville Texas who is disadvantaged. I see hands up for upper middle class blacks and that doesn’t make sense to me from a “who should get the benefit of the doubt” standpoint. Because I see it as a class struggle more than a race struggle from an institutional perspective. 
I have recalibrated my opinions, somewhat, with the Trump administration because it’s clear that there is more going on there than I’d have thought, but I don’t think it’s systematic 

Like I said, I could well be wrong. 

Agreed on a lot of fronts. I don't think you can solely say "it's a class thing", though. Not until we reach a day where a poor black kid who rose up and went to college would have the same chance of being a CEO some day as a poor white kid who rose up and went to college. And you being a smart dude, I'm sure you already know we're not there yet.

But, I do agree that alongside systemic disadvantages that are race-based, our government should be addressing income inequality and lack of upward mobility for all. That's an issue that is up near the top, importance wise, for me. It's one of the reasons I voted for Bernie in the primary, despite him being way, way left of me politically in most ways. Poor white people and minorities should be aligned on a lot of things. Really, everyone in the bottom 95% or so should be aligned. But wedge issues and whatnot.

Edited July 21, 2020 by BradInATX

[workswithseed 2095]

4 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah- I wasn’t meaning to imply that you said systematic racism- but that’s being thrown around a lot. I think the system, generally, is set up to advantage the haves, disadvantage the have nots and keep everyone in their lane. Minorities are mostly have nots and the system grounds them up at times, but I don’t think that’s because they are minorities, more I think that’s how the system works. 
I went to UT. I went to a top 20 law school  I had classmates that were minorities that got in because of affirmative action and they were... mostly like me!  I don’t see a hand up for the poor kid from Appalachia or Hicksville Texas who is disadvantaged. I see hands up for upper middle class blacks and that doesn’t make sense to me from a “who should get the benefit of the doubt” standpoint. Because I see it as a class struggle more than a race struggle from an institutional perspective. 
I have recalibrated my opinions, somewhat, with the Trump administration because it’s clear that there is more going on there than I’d have thought, but I don’t think it’s systematic 

Like I said, I could well be wrong. 

I talked to the pastor about this, and he thinks the same. I sent you the link were he talks about it. I don't think it's as racist as people make it out to be, but there is definitely something going on.

[Wulaw Horn 19068]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Agreed on a lot of fronts. I don't think you can solely say "it's a class thing", though. Not until we reach a day where a poor black kid who rose up and went to college would have the same chance of being a CEO some day as a poor white kid who rose up and went to college. And you being a smart dude, I'm sure you already know we're not there yet.

But, I do agree that alongside systemic disadvantages that are race-based, our government should be addressing income inequality and lack of upward mobility for all. That's an issue that is up near the top, importance wise, for me. It's one of the reasons I voted for Bernie in the primary, despite him being way, way left of me politically in most ways. Poor white people and minorities should be aligned on a lot of things. Really, everyone in the bottom 95% or so should be aligned. But wedge issues and whatnot.

See, the first paragraph is where I actually disagree with you. The system of affirmative action and diversity promote what you are saying doesn’t exist, to a large extent, to my way of thinking. 
I’ve seen plenty of black people get nods they wouldn’t have, or opportunities, that wouldn’t be afforded poor whites. 
like I said, I mightn’t well be wrong, but that’s what I’ve seen from my experiences. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, Wulaw Horn said:

See, the first paragraph is where I actually disagree with you. The system of affirmative action and diversity promote what you are saying doesn’t exist, to a large extent, to my way of thinking. 
I’ve seen plenty of black people get nods they wouldn’t have, or opportunities, that wouldn’t be afforded poor whites. 
like I said, I mightn’t well be wrong, but that’s what I’ve seen from my experiences. 

 

I have sort of mixed feelings on the implementation of Affirmative Action. Even so, I definitely don't believe that one instance of AA giving a black kid a leg up for college makes up for a lifetime of small disadvantages that he or she would be subjected to vs. a similarly-classed white kid. Not even close.

Plus, maybe the white kid should have just pulled himself up by his bootstraps and tried harder. World needs ditch diggers too.

[Wulaw Horn 19068]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

 

I have sort of mixed feelings on the implementation of Affirmative Action. Even so, I definitely don't believe that one instance of AA giving a black kid a leg up for college makes up for a lifetime of small disadvantages that he or she would be subjected to vs. a similarly-classed white kid. Not even close.

Plus, maybe the white kid should have just pulled himself up by his bootstraps and tried harder. World needs ditch diggers too.

It’s not something I get mad about or anything. I get it. I just think in a rational world the poor white kid should be helped more than the suburban black kid because he or she had more to overcome,  it I don’t disagree with the idea of trying to give a hand up to those who started out behind the 8 ball. We aren’t arguing concepts here, so much as which is a tougher starting position in life. 
I think I’m right or I wouldn’t think that I’d think something else, I’m sure you feel the same. But we are saying pretty similar stuff. 

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

It’s not something I get mad about or anything. I get it. I just think in a rational world the poor white kid should be helped more than the suburban black kid because he or she had more to overcome,  it I don’t disagree with the idea of trying to give a hand up to those who started out behind the 8 ball. We aren’t arguing concepts here, so much as which is a tougher starting position in life. 
I think I’m right or I wouldn’t think that I’d think something else, I’m sure you feel the same. But we are saying pretty similar stuff. 

 

We are. I just know, as a white male, the advantages large and small that I've received throughout my life for being a Germanic looking white dude, and I don't have much sympathy for white kids who waste those advantages and end up smoking meth in West Virginia or whatever. Maybe that's snobbery, I don't know. But I do know for a fact that life as a white man isn't that difficult.

To add, I didn't come from money. My family was lower middle class on its best days, and poor on its worst.

Edited July 21, 2020 by BradInATX

[Wulaw Horn 19068]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

We are. I just know, as a white male, the advantages large and small that I've received throughout my life for being a Germanic looking white dude, and I don't have much sympathy for white kids who waste those advantages and end up smoking meth in West Virginia or whatever. Maybe that's snobbery, I don't know. But I do know for a fact that life as a white man isn't that difficult.

That’s because you didn’t grow up in a single parent, poor white family in the middle of meth country. It’s a hard life for those that did man. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

That’s because you didn’t grow up in a single parent, poor white family in the middle of meth country. It’s a hard life for those that did man. 

I didn't grow up that far off from the situation you described. We're meandering though, I'll let the thread get back to Brothahorn's disappearance.

Edited July 21, 2020 by BradInATX

[UpperWestside 6161]

44 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I didn't grow up that far off from the situation you described. We're meandering though, I'll let the thread get back to Brothahorn's disappearance.

He’s furiously hunting for his next internet meme to amaze us all with.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/27/white-high-school-drop-outs-are-as-likely-to-land-jobs-as-black-college-students/#7c07c8bb7b8f

Quote

African-Americans college students are about as likely to get hired as whites who have dropped out of high school. So says a new report from a non-profit called Young Invincibles, which analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census and examined the effect race and education levels have on unemployment. “We were startled to see just how much more education young African-Americans must get in order to have the same chance at landing a job as their white peers,” said Rory O’Sullivan, deputy director of Young Invincibles, in a statement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/10/white-high-school-dropouts-are-wealthier-than-black-and-hispanic-college-graduates-can-a-new-policy-tool-fix-that/

Quote

Maybe no economic statistic captures the continuing impact of the nation’s history of inequality better than the racial wealth gap. It has left a yawning gulf that separates whites from blacks and Hispanics. And it persists across income and educational levels in ways that have left whites who are high school dropouts with a higher median new worth greater than blacks and Hispanics who are college graduates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black-poverty-differs-from-white-poverty/

Quote

The poverty that poor African Americans experience is often different from the poverty of poor whites. It's more isolating and concentrated. It extends out the door of a family's home and occupies the entire neighborhood around it, touching the streets, the schools, the grocery stores.

A poor black family, in short, is much more likely than a poor white one to live in a neighborhood where many other families are poor, too, creating what sociologists call the "double burden" of poverty. The difference is stark in most major metropolitan areas, according to recent data analyzed by Rutgers University's Paul Jargowsky in a new report for the Century Foundation.

Quote

This data point — the share of poor people living in deeply poor places — gets at an important element of poverty that's obscured by citywide poverty rates. "The concentration of poverty is really about the spatial organization of poverty," Jargowsky writes. It captures how we've designed communities to pen poverty in, restricting many poor African Americans in particular to a limited number of neighborhoods.

 

 

Whatever words you want to use to describe the impact of racist policies and the exhaustive effort to maintain said polices, the end result is a country that systematically disadvantaged black people for its entire existence. Everything from where black folks live, to where black folks go to school, to how black folks are valued by society at large is a direct result of generations of this systematic denial to freely pursue life and liberty.

@Wulaw HornAs for who has taken advantage of AA it would be good if you provided data rather than leaving us to rely on your individual anecdotes where I'd gather that you didn't have access to all your law school buddies' bios.   

[Rougarou 594]

54 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I didn't grow up that far off from the situation you described. We're meandering though, I'll let the thread get back to Brothahorn's disappearance.

 

[Wulaw Horn 19068]

10 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/27/white-high-school-drop-outs-are-as-likely-to-land-jobs-as-black-college-students/#7c07c8bb7b8f

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/10/white-high-school-dropouts-are-wealthier-than-black-and-hispanic-college-graduates-can-a-new-policy-tool-fix-that/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black-poverty-differs-from-white-poverty/

 

 

Whatever words you want to use to describe the impact of racist policies and the exhaustive effort to maintain said polices, the end result is a country that systematically disadvantaged black people for its entire existence. Everything from where black folks live, to where black folks go to school, to how black folks are valued by society at large is a direct result of generations of this systematic denial to freely pursue life and liberty.

@Wulaw HornAs for who has taken advantage of AA it would be good if you provided data rather than leaving us to rely on your individual anecdotes where I'd gather that you didn't have access to all your law school buddies' bios.   

The first page of google told me the average earnings of a black graduate is $37k a year. Average earning of a high school dropout is 20,500. 
I haven’t  read your link, I’m suspicious, but I will. I said I’m open to having my mind changed. 
To follow up- it said blacks with a colleges degree (4 year) earn 95% of similarly educated whites and blacks with a doctorate degree or higher earn more than whites. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[workswithseed 2095]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

The first page of google told me the average earnings of a black graduate is $37k a year. Average earning of a high school dropout is 20,500. 
I haven’t  read your link, I’m suspicious, but I will. I said I’m open to having my mind changed. 

I heard 50k today, actually.

[workswithseed 2095]

https://smartasset.com/retirement/the-average-salary-by-age

The Average Salary 25-34

For Americans ages 25 to 34, the median salary is $918 per week, or $47,736 per year. That’s a big jump from the median salary for 20- to 24-year-olds. As a general rule, earnings tend to rise in your 20s and 30s as you start to climb up the ladder. Also, this set includes many people who received professional degrees from graduate schools, further bringing up salaries.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

10 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

The first page of google told me the average earnings of a black graduate is $37k a year. Average earning of a high school dropout is 20,500. 
I haven’t  read your link, I’m suspicious, but I will. I said I’m open to having my mind changed. 
To follow up- it said blacks with a colleges degree (4 year) earn 95% of similarly educated whites and blacks with a doctorate degree or higher earn more than whites. 

Nothing I highlighted mentioned income. Income and  wealth are two entirely different things. The first is a simple yearly cash flow metric, the second has a time component which, ultimately, is at the very core of what this entire discussion is about.  Wealth is built inter-generationally. Wealth allows one to take risk. It allows one to weather losses in income or health issues. On the macro level wealth only builds with time. Something black people, as a function of state action, were prevented from doing. 

[Wulaw Horn 19068]

2 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Nothing I highlighted mentioned income. Income and  wealth are two entirely different things. The first is a simple yearly cash flow metric, the second has a time component which, ultimately, is at the very core of what this entire discussion is about.  Wealth is built inter-generationally. Wealth allows one to take risk. It allows one to weather losses in income or health issues. On the macro level wealth only builds with time. Something black people, as a function of state action, were prevented from doing. 

As I said, didn’t read your  links yet but will. Thanks. 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

31 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

As I said, didn’t read your  links yet but will. Thanks. 

I don't mean to come off as attacking. I generally enjoy your good faith discussions on myriad topics. However when it comes to racial issues I find that discussions on surly often boil down to two factions; people who don't typically have much interest on certain issues and thus don't read much of anything on the subject and then others who take a keen interest (regardless of what side of a particular point of contention they reside) and argue from a certain knowledge base. Now this dichotomy exists for pretty much every topic discussed on here, but for some reason when racial discussions come up the side that never reads much of anything on the topic exceeds the other by far. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Catdaddyhorn

[Wulaw Horn 19068]

5 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

I don't mean to come off as attacking. I generally enjoy your good faith discussions on myriad topics. However when it comes to racial issues I find that discussions on surly often boil down two factions; people who don't typically have much interest on certain issues and thus don't read much of anything on the subject and then others who take a keen interest (regardless of what side of a particular point of contention they reside) and argue from a certain knowledge base. Now this dichotomy exists for pretty much every topic discussed on here, but for some reason when racial discussions come up the side that never reads much of anything on the topic exceeds the other by far. 

You can agree with me or disagree and I’ve certainly never walked in your shoes, but if I had to explain my position in 150 words or less it’d be this:

being born poor and a minority would suck. There’s a desire to help minorities on the part of white liberals and other decent people that leads to advantages greater than the inborn disadvantaged of being a minority for the well off. It’s somewhere between a bit of a shitty hand and a lot of a shitty hand to be dark skinned in America. It’s not so shitty that it can’t be overcome by adopting the dominant culture and going along with that and going along to get along.  The typical educated white person wants to see minorities do well, as long as its not at their expense. We have come a loooong way but we still have some way to go. 

[Dahobbs 17527]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah- I wasn’t meaning to imply that you said systematic racism- but that’s being thrown around a lot. I think the system, generally, is set up to advantage the haves, disadvantage the have nots and keep everyone in their lane. Minorities are mostly have nots and the system grounds them up at times, but I don’t think that’s because they are minorities, more I think that’s how the system works. 
I went to UT. I went to a top 20 law school  I had classmates that were minorities that got in because of affirmative action and they were... mostly like me!  I don’t see a hand up for the poor kid from Appalachia or Hicksville Texas who is disadvantaged. I see hands up for upper middle class blacks and that doesn’t make sense to me from a “who should get the benefit of the doubt” standpoint. Because I see it as a class struggle more than a race struggle from an institutional perspective. 
I have recalibrated my opinions, somewhat, with the Trump administration because it’s clear that there is more going on there than I’d have thought, but I don’t think it’s systematic 

Like I said, I could well be wrong. 

I used to believe this. I was really wrong. There is room for more than one type of systemic disadvantage to exist. 

[Wulaw Horn 19068]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I used to believe this. I was really wrong. There is room for more than one type of systemic disadvantage to exist. 

Maybe. I think Trump is a one off, he brings out the worst in America, and appeals to the uneducated dipshits that don’t wield much power. We will see where this goes from here. As I said, I’ve recalibrated my opinion somewhat and an open to the idea I was wrong. 
I have a hard time dealing with stuff I don’t know. As a suburban guy most of my life that was always segregated into honors classes and grew up living in California until I was 12 I witnessed literal zero open racism. So- its antithetical you my Christian belief systems, I’ve never personally experienced it and I’ve never really seen it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist just that I can’t easily wrap my mind around it. 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

One thing that my reading has taught me is how much closer (relative to today) black and white wealth were in the time prior to the depression. At first it's surprising, but then you realize there wasn't much of a middle class back then so outside of the uber wealthy, merchant, and professional classes everyone was poor. The policy efforts to build the middle class after the depression and after WWII, suburbanization, and total locking out of black folks from all those provisions created what we see today. 

There's a natural inclination to see the problem of racism on an individual level and while it matters, the overwhelming share of the work is/was done as a result of the structural issues created by the policy efforts referenced above. After all, without the prohibition of access to private and government backed funds there wasn't anything preventing black banks and black entrepreneurs from creating black townships akin to Levittown, and other first generation suburban townships. Without the former there wasn't anything preventing black GIs from utilizing the GI bill fully and freely. Without the fiat prohibition to leverage that capital there was nothing preventing black folks from building commerce and businesses in those newly built townships. Without the disenfranchisement and resulting prohibition of political power there's probably someone on all levels government present to advocate for black interests and preventing the destruction of black neighborhoods to make way for tributaries and the interstate. This (and much more) was the work that was done that left the resulting world we live in. This is the type of shit black people are truly concerned with fixing. All the other niceties on an individual level are good, but ultimately they don't matter near as much. The racist views and beliefs individuals may or may not have are emboldened by the present day structural inequalities created by the policy efforts of our past. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Catdaddyhorn

[FondrenRoad 4378]

56 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Maybe. I think Trump is a one off, he brings out the worst in America, and appeals to the uneducated dipshits that don’t wield much power. We will see where this goes from here. As I said, I’ve recalibrated my opinion somewhat and an open to the idea I was wrong. 
I have a hard time dealing with stuff I don’t know. As a suburban guy most of my life that was always segregated into honors classes and grew up living in California until I was 12 I witnessed literal zero open racism. So- its antithetical you my Christian belief systems, I’ve never personally experienced it and I’ve never really seen it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist just that I can’t easily wrap my mind around it. 

One off?  This sounds like someone who isn't ready for the President Kid Rock administration.

Edited July 21, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[Brisketexan 105081]

One thing that my reading has taught me is how much closer (relative to today) black and white wealth were in the time prior to the depression. At first it's surprising, but then you realize there wasn't much of a middle class back then so outside of the uber wealthy, merchant, and professional class everyone was poor. The policy efforts to build the middle class after the depression and after WWII, suburbanization, and total locking out of black folks from all those provisions created what we see today. 
There's a natural inclination to see the problem of racism on an individual level and while it matters, the overwhelming share of the work is/was done as a result of the structural issues created by the policy efforts referenced above. After all, without the prohibition of access to private and government backed funds there wasn't anything preventing black banks and black entrepreneurs from creating black townships akin to Levittown, and other first generation suburban townships. Without the former there wasn't anything preventing black GIs from utilizing the GI bill fully and freely. Without the fiat prohibition to leverage that capital there was nothing preventing black folks from building commerce and businesses in those newly built townships. Without the disenfranchisement and resulting prohibition of political power there's probably someone on all levels government present to advocate for black interests and preventing the destruction of black neighborhoods to make way for tributaries and the interstate. This (and much more) was the work that was done that left the resulting world we live in. This is the type of shit black people are truly concerned with fixing. All the other niceties on an individual level are good, but ultimately they don't matter near as much. The racist views and beliefs individuals may or may not have are emboldened by the present day structural inequalities created by the policy efforts of our past. 

All of this. Systematic, and across the board. And if you don’t think that fucked Black people for generations to come, you’re really shitty at economics.
And that’s what terrifies white middle and lower class America: that maybe, just maybe, black folks etc will be coming for what they should have had all along...equal opportunity in housing, education, etc.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

25 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

One thing that my reading has taught me is how much closer (relative to today) black and white wealth was in the time prior to the depression.

Yeah, this is confirmed by my family's history.  My mother's father was a farmer.  I'm not sure where he got the wealth to buy his plot of land, but he had black and white sharecroppers on it before and during the depression.  So I guess he was a step ahead of the black families by having the land, but I understand keeping it was a near thing in those days.  He worked the CCC to keep some cash flowing I guess to keep the farm note afloat.

By hook or crook, he moved into town after the war and kept the land, but sold the farmhouse to a black family that worked his land, on very favorable terms.  The house was moved down the road to where they had some land.  We would go and visit that family from time to time until Etta then Charlie passed.

He did send two kids to college, but when my grandparents passed, they had nothing in terms of assets besides their house in town and that farmland, which grandfather planted with pine trees before leaving (and has turned into a nice inheritance).

My Dad's father walked off the farm in Rosalie, Texas after graduating high school at age 16.  He was the last of 13 kids and his services on the farm were not required. so off he went.  He built a decent life and also sent two kids to college, but died with even less than my mothers' parents, just a home.

So, no great huge advantages in either case.  But they weren't saddled with being black.

Both my grandfathers spent some time as teachers, despite not having college educations.  They were major proponents of education, as evidenced by my parents, aunt and uncle.  And my Mom and Dad were just fucking smart.

I can't point to any huge advantages my parents had, other than just being white.  Dad finished college on the GI BIll. His sister recommended he buy a home in a neighborhood that benefited extraordinarily from desegregation.  They scrimped and saved and waited to have just one kid until relatively late in life.  And gave me a pretty upper middle class existence.

But over the 60 or so years described above, my family went from not a whole better off materially than adjacent blacks, to wildly better off than most everyone, to include the vast majority of blacks.

Blacks probably had a harder time taking advantage of the GI BIll, or were they even eligible?  Probably didn't get VA mortgages?  Probably would not have been able to buy into most similar neighborhoods.  Wouldn't have been hired at the job my Dad had at Texas Instruments.

Edited July 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31440]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not minimizing the advantage of "just being white."  It's an unfathomable, unquantifiable advantage.  I and probably none of us can count how it worked in our favor.  

But, it also occurs to me that there are probably quite a few whiteys with similar types of stories, devoid of Klan membership, active subversion of Negros, etc. etc. that feel sort of blameless in the whole thing.

So that's where the "fragility" comes from.  But there's still privilege involved.

You just cannot escape this:

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Even as a kid I saw it work directly in my favor.  I had an unorthodox upbringing to say the least and had some unique but perhaps unfair advantages, but by kindergarten, I was also a poor white kid that grew up in a black neighborhood in 80s and 90s Houston.  Back then, a gang did run the neighborhood.  And one thing I saw is that my black friends were pressured to join it and I wasn't.  And most of them did and later faced issues because of it.  Also pressured is way too light of a word to describe the actual pressure they faced.  That's not to say that I never faced issues or never did dumb shit.  I did.  But I was never a member of a gang and just being a member was damn near a prison sentence.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

Also, two notable things in my parents and grandparents sagas.  Wealth in the form of real estate.  Both grandparents owned homes at their deaths.

My parents invested wisely and luckily in residential real estate.

Also, some upward mobility, facilitated by WWII.  Great swaths of people from their hometown vicinity (SW Arkansa) ended up in Dallas.  Dad for SMU on the GI BIll, and my Mom in tow shortly after.  But it's a common theme among their peers.

Probably weren't too many better places on earth to be than Dallas, Texas from 1945 to present.  As a white person, anyway.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Even as a kid I saw it work directly in my favor.  I had an unorthodox upbringing to say the least and had some unique but perhaps unfair advantages, but by kindergarten, I was also a poor white kid that grew up in a black neighborhood in 80s and 90s Houston.  Back then, a gang did run the neighborhood.  And one thing I saw is that my black friends were pressured to join it and I wasn't.  And most of them did and later faced issues because of it.  Also pressured is way too light of a word to describe the actual pressure they faced.  That's not to say that I never faced issues or never did dumb shit.  I did.  But I was never a member of a gang and just being a member was damn near a prison sentence.

A very cynical view of that would be a "dysfunctional" black culture that you were blessed to avoid by virtue of your skin tone.

Of course, the reason for the dysfunction is traceable to other disadvantages.

I keep squawking about this Pruett-Igoe Homes documentary, but it was so informative.

One of the factors identified there was that black and lower income "slums" were eradicated in favor of the housing project.  Well, the slums were indeed shitty, so it sounds like a win.  But the slums also had remnants of community that fell by the wayside in their destruction.  To be replaced by gangs.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah, this is confirmed by my family's history.  My mother's father was a farmer.  I'm not sure where he got the wealth to buy his plot of land, but he had black and white sharecroppers on it before and during the depression.  So I guess he was a step ahead of the black families by having the land, but I understand keeping it was a near thing in those days.  He worked the CCC to keep some cash flowing I guess to keep the farm note afloat.
By hook or crook, he moved into town after the war and kept the land, but sold the farmhouse to a black family that worked his land, on very favorable terms.  The house was moved down the road to where they had some land.  We would go and visit that family from time to time until Etta then Charlie passed.
He did send two kids to college, but when my grandparents passed, they had nothing in terms of assets besides their house in town and that farmland, which grandfather planted with pine trees before leaving (and has turned into a nice inheritance).
My Dad's father walked off the farm in Rosalie, Texas after graduating high school at age 16.  He was the last of 13 kids and his services on the farm were not required. so off he went.  He built a decent life and also sent two kids to college, but died with even less than my mothers' parents, just a home.
So, no great huge advantages in either case.  But they weren't saddled with being black.
Both my grandfathers spent some time as teachers, despite not having college educations.  They were major proponents of education, as evidenced by my parents, aunt and uncle.  And my Mom and Dad were just fucking smart.
I can't point to any huge advantages my parents had, other than just being white.  Dad finished college on the GI BIll. His sister recommended he buy a home in a neighborhood that benefited extraordinarily from desegregation.  They scrimped and saved and waited to have just one kid until relatively late in life.  And gave me a pretty upper middle class existence.
But over the 60 or so years described above, my family went from not a whole better off materially than adjacent blacks, to wildly better off than most everyone, to include the vast majority of blacks.
Blacks probably had a harder time taking advantage of the GI BIll, or were they even eligible?  Probably didn't get VA mortgages?  Probably would not have been able to buy into most similar neighborhoods.  Wouldn't have been hired at the job my Dad had at Texas Instruments.

The disparity between black and white veterans in regards to the GI Bill was huge.

That single piece of legislation catapulted millions of families into the ranks of the middle then upper class.

But only white ones.

This bit sums it up, but I included the whole article down below.

The original GI Bill ended in July 1956. By that time, nearly 8 million World War II veterans had received education or training, and 4.3 million home loans worth $33 billion had been handed out. But most Black veterans had been left behind.

As employment, college attendance and wealth surged for whites, disparities with their Black counterparts not only continued, but widened. There was, writes Katznelson, “no greater instrument for widening an already huge racial gap in postwar America than the GI Bill.”

The GI Bill is a perfect example of past systemic and institutional racism that no longer exists on a policy level that still reverberates today, nearly 80 years later.

https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits

The Burnetts weren’t the only Black Americans for whom the promise of the GI Bill turned out to be an illusion. Though the bill helped white Americans prosper and accumulate wealth in the postwar years, it didn’t deliver on that promise for veterans of color. In fact, the wide disparity in the bill’s implementation ended up helping drive growing gaps in wealth, education and civil rights between white and Black Americans.

While the GI Bill’s language did not specifically exclude African-American veterans from its benefits, it was structured in a way that ultimately shut doors for the 1.2 million Black veterans who had bravely served their country during World War II, in segregated ranks.

When lawmakers began drafting the GI Bill in 1944, some Southern Democrats feared that returning Black veterans would use public sympathy for veterans to advocate against Jim Crow laws. To make sure the GI Bill largely benefited white people, the southern Democrats drew on tactics they had previously used to ensure that the New Deal helped as few Black people as possible.

During the drafting of the law, the chair of the House Veterans Committee, Mississippi Congressman John Rankin, played hardball and insisted that the program be administered by individual states instead of the federal government. He got his way. Rankin was known for his virulent racism: He defended segregation, opposed interracial marriage, and had even proposed legislation to confine, then deport, every person with Japanese heritage during World War II.

When the bill came to a committee vote, he stonewalled in an attempt to gut another provision that entitled all veterans to $20 a week of unemployment compensation for a year. Rankin knew this would represent a significant gain for Black Southerners, so he refused to cast a critical proxy vote in protest. The American Legion ended up tracking down the Congressman who had left his proxy vote with Rankin and flying him to Washington to break the deadlock.

From the start, Black veterans had trouble securing the GI Bill’s benefits. Some could not access benefits because they had not been given an honorable discharge—and a much larger number of Black veterans were discharged dishonorably than their white counterparts.

Veterans who did qualify could not find facilities that delivered on the bill’s promise. Black veterans in a vocational training program at a segregated high school in Indianapolis were unable to participate in activities related to plumbing, electricity and printing because adequate equipment was only available to white students.

Simple intimidation kept others from enjoying GI Bill benefits. In 1947, for example, a crowd hurled rocks at Black veterans as they moved into a Chicago housing development.

Thousands of Black veterans were attacked in the years following World War II and some were singled out and lynched.
Though Rankin had lost the battle to exclude Black men from VA unemployment insurance, it was doled out inequitably. Men who applied for unemployment benefits were kicked out of the program if any other work was available to them, even work that provided less than subsistence wages. Southern postmasters were even accused of refusing to deliver the forms Black veterans needed to fill out to receive their unemployment benefits.

Black veterans’ and civil rights groups protested their treatment, calling for protections like Black involvement in the VA and non-discriminatory loans, but the racial disparities in the implementation of the GI Bill had already been set into motion. As the years went on, white veterans flowed into newly created suburbs, where they began amassing wealth in skilled positions. But Black veterans lacked those options. The majority of skilled jobs were given to white workers.

The postwar housing boom almost entirely excluded Black Americans, most of whom remained in cities that received less and less investment from businesses and banks.

Though the GI Bill guaranteed low-interest mortgages and other loans, they were not administered by the VA itself. Thus, the VA could cosign, but not actually guarantee the loans. This gave white-run financial institutions free reign to refuse mortgages and loans to Black people.

Redlining—a decades-old practice of marking maps by race to characterize the risks of lending money and providing insurance—made purchasing a home even more difficult for Black veterans. Lenders froze out poorer neighborhoods, ensuring that loan assistance and insurance would be denied. And new white suburbs often came with overtly racist covenants that denied entry to Black people.

In 1947, only 2 of the more than 3,200 VA-guaranteed home loans in 13 Mississippi cities went to Black borrowers. “These impediments were not confined to the South,” notes historian Ira Katznelson. “In New York and the northern New Jersey suburbs, fewer than 100 of the 67,000 mortgages insured by the GI bill supported home purchases by non-whites.”

Black veterans in search of the education they had been guaranteed fared no better. Many Black men returning home from the war didn’t even try to take advantage of the bill’s educational benefits—they could not afford to spend time in school instead of working. But those who did were at a considerable disadvantage compared to their white counterparts.

Public education provided poor preparation for Black students, and many lacked much educational attainment at all due to poverty and social pressures.

As veteran applications flooded universities, Black students often found themselves left out. Northern universities dragged their feet when it came to admitting Black students, and Southern colleges barred Black students entirely. And the VA itself encouraged Black veterans to apply for vocational training instead of university admission and arbitrarily denied educational benefits to some students.

The original GI Bill ended in July 1956. By that time, nearly 8 million World War II veterans had received education or training, and 4.3 million home loans worth $33 billion had been handed out. But most Black veterans had been left behind. As employment, college attendance and wealth surged for whites, disparities with their Black counterparts not only continued, but widened. There was, writes Katznelson, “no greater instrument for widening an already huge racial gap in postwar America than the GI Bill.”

Today, a stark wealth gap between Black and white Americans persists. The median income for white households in 2017 was $68,145, according to the U.S. Census. For Black households, it was $40,258.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

4 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The disparity between black and white veterans in regards to the GI Bill was huge.

That single piece of legislation catapulted millions of families into the ranks of the middle then upper class.

But only white ones.

This bit sums it up, but I included the whole article down below.



The GI Bill is a perfect example of past systemic and institutional racism that no longer exists on a policy level that still reverberates today, nearly 80 years later.

https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits
 

Thanks.  Also identifies New Deal as racially biased.  I know my mother's father worked in the CCC building highways all over SW Arkansas.  I don't know if that was "lucrative" or just something to do, but he also maintained the farm on at least a subsistence level.  They never went hungry during the Depression.  Weirdly, the Depression was mostly an abstraction for both of my parents.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Gosh, I listened to a podcast that had an episode about the TVA and PWA that focuses on the inequities Black and Native American workers faced and I cannot remember which podcast.

American History Tellers, maybe?

We think of The New Deal and The GI Bill as these amazing government programs that did so much good (and they did) but they were still just as segregated as everything else.

They’re textbook examples of systematic racism trumping good intentions.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

Reading about the great migration one of the biggest motivational factors to spur getting the fuck out of dodge was the violence, intimidation, & overall terrorism black folks endured. That and the lack of any legal recourse to do something about it. People often only think about the violence in terms of lynchings, but black folks used to get their ass absolutely beaten for the most mundane of circumstances. And most of us don't stop to think about how far reaching the effect of one lynching would have on an entire area. Every county within a 300 mile radius would feel that lynching as if it happened right in their own town. Think about today how impactful and the fear inducing reaction that one avowed Islamic terrorist bombing would have on the entire country, much less the localized area. 

As far as the differences for black sharecroppers go that lack of legal recourse disfavored them economically. Estimates made after studying the black sharecropping system in the 30s said that only a quarter to a 3rd of them got an honest settlement. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Catdaddyhorn

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Reading about the great migration one of the biggest motivational factors to spur getting the fuck out of dodge was the violence, intimidation, & overall terrorism black folks endured. That and the lack of any legal recourse to do something about it. People often only think about the violence in terms of lynchings, but black folks used to get their ass absolutely beaten for the most mundane of circumstances. And most of us don't stop to think about how far reaching the effect of one lynching would have on an entire area. Every county within a 300 mile radius would feel that lynching as if it happened right in their own town. Think about today how impactful and the fear inducing reaction that one avowed Islamic terrorist bombing would have on the entire country, much less the localized area. 

As far as the differences for black sharecroppers go that lack of legal recourse disfavored them economically. Estimates made after studying the black sharecropping system in the 30s said that only a quarter to a 3rd of them got an honest settlement. 

An Islamic terrorist bombing is incomparable. Yes, 911 made us fearful nationwide.  But lynching happened with a complicit government and law enforcement. Its infinitely worse than Islamic terrorism where all government and law enforcement are also against it.  Islamic terrorism made us feel unsafe sometimes in public places but we felt safe at home and generally. Lynching is so much worse than that. It was state sanctioned. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[DalTxHornFan 3097]

White guy here.  Earlier generations of my family were never wealthy enough to own slaves.  They did receive some original land grants as early settlers in the times leading up to the establishment of the Republic of Texas.  Many acres of that land were lost to the reconstruction era property tax land grab schemes.  My late great grandmother (born in 1892) told stories (one generation removed, obviously) of reconstruction era carpet baggers harassing land owners, threatening foreclosures, indiscriminately assessing valuations and taxes and generally letting them know that they needed to sign over their deeds to them if they knew what was good for them.  History is way more complicated than what you see on TV or on the internet.  

Edited July 21, 2020 by DalTxHornFan

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, two notable things in my parents and grandparents sagas.  Wealth in the form of real estate.  Both grandparents owned homes at their deaths.

My parents invested wisely and luckily in residential real estate.

Also, some upward mobility, facilitated by WWII.  Great swaths of people from their hometown vicinity (SW Arkansa) ended up in Dallas.  Dad for SMU on the GI BIll, and my Mom in tow shortly after.  But it's a common theme among their peers.

Probably weren't too many better places on earth to be than Dallas, Texas from 1945 to present.  As a white person, anyway.

Knowing that you're a Dallas guy like me have you heard of Jim Schutze book entitled The Accommodation. 

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1987/march/the-accommodation/

"The main focus of the book, however, is the period from 1950 to 1970. The chapters presented here deal with a series of dynamite bombings of black homes in South Dallas, which in 1950 was still mainly white. A handful of black families, armed with savings and mustering-out money from service in World War II, had been able to afford new homes in white neighborhoods. The violence that greeted their arrival there-and the reaction it provoked in the city’s leadership-is a chapter of Dallas history that is neither widely remembered nor proudly told."

And here's a documentary about some of Dallas' segregation efforts. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/new-documentary-bonton-and-ideal-tells-the-racially-charged-history-of-south-dallas

 

Despite the above, Dallas pales in comparison to the efforts Chicagoans made in preventing black folks moving into white communities. The South Shore neighborhood on the southside of Chicago had 58 bombings of houses over a just a 4 year period from 1917-1921. 

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

16 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

An Islamic terrorist bombing is incomparable. Yes, 911 made us fearful nationwide.  But lynching happened with a complicit government and law enforcement. Its infinitely worse than Islamic terrorism where all government and law enforcement are also against it.  Islamic terrorism made us feel unsafe sometimes in public places but we felt safe at home and generally. Lynching is so much worse than that. It was state sanctioned. 

I agree. Clumsy effort on my part to relate the fears of black folks then to today.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

White guy here.  Earlier generations of my family were never wealthy enough to own slaves.  They did receive some original land grants as early settlers in the times leading up to the establishment of the Republic of Texas.  Many acres of that land were lost to the reconstruction era property tax land grab schemes.  My late great grandmother (born in 1892) told stories (one generation removed, obviously) of reconstruction era carpet baggers harassing land owners, threatening foreclosures, indiscriminately assessing valuations and taxes and generally letting them know that they needed to sign over their deeds to them if they knew what was good for them.  History is way more complicated than what you see on TV or on the internet.  

This is way more assholish than I intend it to be so I apologize in advance. 

Unscrupulous people took advantage of uncertainty?  No way!  Its awesome that we live in a totally different time where nobody ever tries to swindle anyone.

When people talk about covid in the future, they won't understand how many Americans ordered masks that never arrived.  When future people talk about the internet, they won't understand about the plight of a million Nigerian princes.

[DalTxHornFan 3097]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

This is way more assholish than I intend it to be so I apologize in advance. 

Unscrupulous people took advantage of uncertainty?  No way!  Its awesome that we live in a totally different time where nobody ever tries to swindle anyone.

When people talk about covid in the future, they won't understand how many Americans ordered masks that never arrived.  When future people talk about the internet, they won't understand about the plight of a million Nigerian princes.

My apologies, I didn't make it clear enough for you.  The carpetbaggers took over local governments and effectively stole land during reconstruction.

[horn4life 3759]

The other fly in the ointment in the flawed concept of school vouchers for the wealthy under the guise of helping the poor is that EASE OF MOBILITY is one of their largest challenges.  So while every rich person already paying private school tuition will take advantage of the vouchers (sort of like millionaires on the PPP as designed by the GOP).  While the folks that actually are most desperate for the vouchers (or PPP funds) will largely be outside the loop.

The LACK of mobility is why poor people have crappy healthcare, crappy options for fresh whole foods, and crappy educational options.  Well let's not ignore the systematic reduction in school funding per capita as Conservative Republicans took over state legislatures.  It's not an accident that the financial burdens for middle class and below children has skyrocketed under the same leadership.  NEVER believe that the reason the GOP says they are doing something, is the reason they are doing something.  The "reason" they speak is almost always a lie.  You have to dig deeper and find the true motivation.  That is why education is ALWAYS the first place to look for funding cuts by conservatives, and why tax cuts are the first place where revenue reductions are embraced.

I really, really, really, wish conservative ideas on the economy and education worked.  But the facts are that they have not.  Unless you do not give a shit about quality, nor a shit about burdening our children with ENORMOUS FINANCIAL burdens far in excess of the costs the same conservatives espousing these policies themselves enjoyed.

In essence there is a reason the Republican Presidents have handed off weak economies with skyrocketing deficits, just as well happen again in November.  Each time the GOP does their  very best to increase the misery with "economic conservatism" and "fiscal restraint" ONLY during Democratic Presidencies while absolutely fucking ignoring the same principles during Republican Presidencies.  I honestly wonder if there will ever be a Republican President that hands off a solid economy to a Democratic President?  I guess it could happen, but with "conservative values" the math simply never, ever, ever adds up for some reason.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

22 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

Trying to parse what you're saying here.  You want to shift more educational responsibility to the parents?  

What happens when the parents tell you to fuck off?  Or when you cant find a parent for days/weeks at a time? What enforcement mechanism do you have?  Why should that child be punished because their parents are giant pieces of shit?  

My wife has worked in a few bad schools.  Lots of kids being raised by grandparents because mom is in jail and dad is MIA.  Lots of kids being raised by drug addicts that barely know their kid exists at times.  Then there are kids of shift workers that want to be engaged, but cant be any real help to their kids due to their schedule.  Lots of parents that only engage to literally fight teachers/admin because their kid got in trouble.  Driving educational responsibility to parents is a complete non-starter.  In a perfect world its a great idea, but in reality you would be punishing a lot of kids who have no choice about their lack of parental involvement.  

I'm sorry,  but your argument is so completely off track. Parents are the number one factor in kids learning, stating focussed, creating a future based on that scholastic performance. Without parents or a person in the home assuming that role, kids don't perform to the levels they're capable of. Education begins in the home. If parents or some other role model aren't pushing education, kids aren't going to step up in most cases.  

If you think the teachers or admins are going to take responsibility for a kid learning you're seriously smoking crack. Schools aren't even set up to make that pipe dream a reality.  If they were there'd be more teachers, smaller class sizes, less admin, more concern about actual learning rather than warehousing.

What enforcement mechanism is in place now when a parent fails in their duty ?  Please list all of those mechanisms that take the place of a parent, and create good student performance.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[wildcat09 29347]

You’ve got to love confederates. Most traitors who fail in rebellion throughout history get hanged. They got clemency and were merely forced to let black people vote and to give some land to people they’d previously enslaved, to which they retaliated with a hundred year campaign of terrorism and oppression. And they still think they were the victims.

The only bad thing about reconstruction is that it failed.

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sorry,  but your argument is so completely off track. Parents are the number one factor I kids learning. Without parents or a person in the home assuming that role kids don't perform to the levels they're capable of. Education begins in the home.  If parents or some other role model isn't pushing education kids aren't goon g to step up in most cases.  

If you think the teachers or admins are going to take responsibility for a kid learning you're seriously smoking crack. Schools aren't even set up to make that pipe dream a reality.  If they were there'd be more teachers, smaller class sizes, less admin, more concern about actual learning rather than warehousing.

What enforcement mechanism is in place now when a parent fails in their duty ?  Please list all of those mechanisms that take the place of a parent and create good student performance.  

That wasn't my argument.  My argument is, regardless of how any of us feel, those bad parents exist.  You can create all the policy you want, shit bag parents will continue to be shit bags.  If you shift more educational burden to the parents, the kids that have none, or have bad ones, will suffer.  Read the bold again.  I don't disagree that the home is a substantial part of a child's education.  What you and Slorch are misunderstanding or ignoring, is that many kids don't have that part.  You cant make parents that aren't there due to jail/shift work/drugs do a better job of parenting their kid.  If your policy ignores that reality, its shitty policy.  You aren't going to be able to legislate good parenting.  That's why my post led with those questions.  

There aren't many formal mechanisms in education to offset shitty parenting besides meals and tutoring.  Kids that qualify as homeless do have some additional support, but its mainly material, not educational.   Informally, good teachers and admin do a lot, but its a finger in a dam with too many holes.  

[TwiceHorn 31440]

6 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Knowing that you're a Dallas guy like me have you heard of Jim Schutze book entitled The Accommodation. 

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1987/march/the-accommodation/

"The main focus of the book, however, is the period from 1950 to 1970. The chapters presented here deal with a series of dynamite bombings of black homes in South Dallas, which in 1950 was still mainly white. A handful of black families, armed with savings and mustering-out money from service in World War II, had been able to afford new homes in white neighborhoods. The violence that greeted their arrival there-and the reaction it provoked in the city’s leadership-is a chapter of Dallas history that is neither widely remembered nor proudly told."

And here's a documentary about some of Dallas' segregation efforts. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/new-documentary-bonton-and-ideal-tells-the-racially-charged-history-of-south-dallas

 

Despite the above, Dallas pales in comparison to the efforts Chicagoans made in preventing black folks moving into white communities. The South Shore neighborhood on the southside of Chicago had 58 bombings of houses over a just a 4 year period from 1917-1921. 

 

Yes I have.  I have read it.

I suppose that would be my Dad's complicity.  As a TIer almost from the outset, he was a great admirer of Erik Jonsson and thus a mid-level honcho in Goals for Dallas.

I'm not sure that Jonsson shared the fear of rioting that is the premise of The Accommodation, but he was influenced by it and  instrumental in the creation of Hamilton Park, which was maybe alternately a noble idea and separate-but-equal.

But he was also active in the Greater Dallas Council of Churches, which was an early effort to create dialog between racial interests in Dallas.  It also happened to be one home of the sort of Uncle Tom pastors referenced by Schutze.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

That wasn't my argument.  My argument is, regardless of how any of us feel, those bad parents exist.  You can create all the policy you want, shit bag parents will continue to be shit bags.  If you shift more educational burden to the parents, the kids that have none, or have bad ones, will suffer.  Read the bold again.  I don't disagree that the home is a substantial part of a child's education.  What you and Slorch are misunderstanding or ignoring, is that many kids don't have that part.  You cant make parents that aren't there due to jail/shift work/drugs do a better job of parenting their kid.  If your policy ignores that reality, its shitty policy.  You aren't going to be able to legislate good parenting.  That's why my post led with those questions.  

There aren't many formal mechanisms in education to offset shitty parenting besides meals and tutoring.  Kids that qualify as homeless do have some additional support, but its mainly material, not educational.   Informally, good teachers and admin do a lot, but its a finger in a dam with too many holes.  

Gotcha, and agree with a lot of what you state, but that's also some chicken, and egg stuff IMO.  If parents aren't involved their kids aren't going to learn.  Look at just about any school that's failing, and you'll see parents not involved on a wholesale level.  Parents have to be involved to make their children focus, achieve, and learn. The school is supposed to be providing the tools for that success to be realized.  Both parts are just about equally necessary in my opinion, but it starts at home. Stable families, or a parent that maintains at least some sanity and normalcy in the home.  Fostering and pushing education, a future realized thru that education, making their kids study, do home work, etc. etc. etc.

I don't know what the answer is short of taking kids from parents, and putting them in a boarding school atmospheres from Sept. to June surrounded by kids who do achieve.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

7 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Reading about the great migration one of the biggest motivational factors to spur getting the fuck out of dodge was the violence, intimidation, & overall terrorism black folks endured. That and the lack of any legal recourse to do something about it. People often only think about the violence in terms of lynchings, but black folks used to get their ass absolutely beaten for the most mundane of circumstances. And most of us don't stop to think about how far reaching the effect of one lynching would have on an entire area. Every county within a 300 mile radius would feel that lynching as if it happened right in their own town. Think about today how impactful and the fear inducing reaction that one avowed Islamic terrorist bombing would have on the entire country, much less the localized area. 

As far as the differences for black sharecroppers go that lack of legal recourse disfavored them economically. Estimates made after studying the black sharecropping system in the 30s said that only a quarter to a 3rd of them got an honest settlement. 

I have no way of knowing how my grandfather treated his sharecroppers.  But, he was a kind man, and liberal, and the fact that my grandparents maintained a lifelong relationship with one sharecropper family, that was black, leads me to believe that he was fair.

Because my parents waited to have a kid until their 40s, I was unable to know my grandparents at that level.

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Gotcha, and agree with a lot of what you state, but that's also some chicken, and egg stuff IMO.  If parents aren't involved their kids aren't going to learn.  Look at just about any school that's failing, and you'll see parents not involved on a wholesale level.  Parents have to be involved to make their children focus, achieve, and learn. The school is supposed to be providing the tools for that success to be realized.  Both parts are just about equally necessary in my opinion, but it starts at home. Stable families, or a parent that maintains at least some sanity and normalcy in the home.  Fostering and pushing education, a future realized thru that education, making their kids study, do home work, etc. etc. etc.

I don't know what the answer is short of taking kids from parents, and putting them in a boarding school atmospheres from Sept. to June surrounded by kids who do achieve.

Yea, the "fix" to bad parenting is a Pandora's box.  Some parents are genuine pieces of shit.  Some parents love their kids but cant give them the attention needed due to work schedules.  Almost any fix is going to require a ton of money that people aren't willing to spend.  They wont spend money to increase the number of teachers available for 8 hours a day, they sure as fuck aren't going to stand up educational orphanages with 24 hour employees.  

I do think you are underselling schools a bit.  They are more than just tools, for many kids they are the entirety of a child's education, especially once you get beyond lower elementary education.  Part of that is parental effort, but a lot of it is exceeding the parent's ability to help.  Dad can yell at a kid all night about doing his homework, but if the kid doesn't get it, and the dad cant help, nothing is actually being done.  That's why you see more and more teachers creating video lessons that can be replayed/reused at home.  They are doing everything they can to offset the parenting problem.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

Yea, the "fix" to bad parenting is a Pandora's box.  Some parents are genuine pieces of shit.  Some parents love their kids but cant give them the attention needed due to work schedules.  Almost any fix is going to require a ton of money that people aren't willing to spend.  They wont spend money to increase the number of teachers available for 8 hours a day, they sure as fuck aren't going to stand up educational orphanages with 24 hour employees.  

I do think you are underselling schools a bit.  They are more than just tools, for many kids they are the entirety of a child's education, especially once you get beyond lower elementary education.  Part of that is parental effort, but a lot of it is exceeding the parent's ability to help.  Dad can yell at a kid all night about doing his homework, but if the kid doesn't get it, and the dad cant help, nothing is actually being done.  That's why you see more and more teachers creating video lessons that can be replayed/reused at home.  They are doing everything they can to offset the parenting problem.  

True on far too many economic points.  Dad yelling at the kid to do his homework is at least a guy trying to be involved in the process.

Waiting for Superman was a sobering film to take in, and illustrates how too many public school systems are not there for kids at all.  Our system is broken in 2 places in the home, and at the school house admin. building.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

7 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Knowing that you're a Dallas guy like me have you heard of Jim Schutze book entitled The Accommodation. 

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1987/march/the-accommodation/

"The main focus of the book, however, is the period from 1950 to 1970. The chapters presented here deal with a series of dynamite bombings of black homes in South Dallas, which in 1950 was still mainly white. A handful of black families, armed with savings and mustering-out money from service in World War II, had been able to afford new homes in white neighborhoods. The violence that greeted their arrival there-and the reaction it provoked in the city’s leadership-is a chapter of Dallas history that is neither widely remembered nor proudly told."

And here's a documentary about some of Dallas' segregation efforts. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-11/new-documentary-bonton-and-ideal-tells-the-racially-charged-history-of-south-dallas

 

Despite the above, Dallas pales in comparison to the efforts Chicagoans made in preventing black folks moving into white communities. The South Shore neighborhood on the southside of Chicago had 58 bombings of houses over a just a 4 year period from 1917-1921. 

 

That Bon Ton documentary really illustrates the point made in the Pruett-Igoe documentary.  The neighborhood may have been shitty, but it was a community.

Housing projects temporarily improved the physical plant, perhaps, but destroyed that community.

Christ what a mess.