I think I've solved the worlds racism problems once and for all!

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by goelie

There will never be an answer or solution to rid racism. It will always exist as long as humans do.

True - I don't think any society in history has come together and prospered for long based upon dividing everyone into racial grievances.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Minka Fox

I think a key principle to any successful change is baby steps. So, my suggestion would be that the first baby step is admitting that we fucked up as a young nation, in regards to how those of white European descent have treated (dehumanized and systematically tortured) indigenous and brown skinned folks. How about that for a start?

I vote no.

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by Opossum

JRLawrance,

Absolutely no person is going to read the 15,000 words you copied and pasted.

It may seem like 15,000 words when one has difficulty reading. I have had hand written exams that are much longer than what I posted.

You did spark my interest; so I did something I never do: I copied my post and inserted into a word processor for the word count: 1438 words. I was thinking it was maybe 1100.

[Opossum]

[QUOTE=JRLawrence;1062102696 have had hand written exams that are much longer than what I posted.

You did spark my interest; so I did something I never do: I copied my post and inserted into a word processor for the word count: 1438 words. I was thinking it was maybe 1100.[/QUOTE]

1. My bad, didn't know you were writing an Eccie exam.

2. Big deal, so I was off. 14, 216 words. Stick that in your VAX word processor.

[Unique_Carpenter]

You'll get used to JR. In KC we have. Just skip to his closing comment.

But back to the thread:
Back in high school a zillion yrs ago, I asked my best friends sister out. Her dad had a huge issue with her dating a white guy. My friend got stuck telling me that. His sis was pissed at her dad, and at her bro for not taking her side. Several months later at an after graduation party at their place, couple dozen of us, couple poker games running, and a surprise, the dad apologised to me. Few min later daughter sat on my lap, cause she had won, and I taught her poker. Her dad went outside, her mom came in, gave her the look of limited amusement, and whispered to both of us, don't go on the back porch, he's upset.
The point?
How do folks really feel when it hits the home turf? Is it ever solved?

Aftermath: At each reunion we're both at, we dance most of the evening.

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

I copied my post and inserted into a word processor for the word count: 1438 words. I was thinking it was maybe 1100.

LOL, you sound intelligent until you try and pass off the current democrats as the same party as the democrats of the civil war, shame on you for playing tricks on the uneducated.

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power

[Lespaulmankc]

I believe that racism will be diminished and possibly eventually eliminated when people of different races have more positive experiences together than negatives experiences. When people of different races become true friends and have empathy for the others are going through.

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by bf0082

LOL, you sound intelligent until you try and pass off the current democrats as the same party as the democrats of the civil war, shame on you for playing tricks on the uneducated.

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power

Damn,
That was very good, and very correct. Thank you for the correction. Indeed things have changed, and I should have brought the two thoughts together in a better way about the Democratic Party.

Although both the Republican and Democratic parties have changed over the years, it was not too long ago when the Democratic Party was mainly in the South.

I had the opportunity to hear a speech by James (Strom) Thurmond Sr. in about 1962 who served for 48 years as a United States Senator from South Carolina.

He ran for president in 1948 as the Dixiecrat candidate on a States Rights platform supporting racial segregation. He received 2.4% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes but failed to defeat Harry Truman."
I had to look this up, so it is in quotes. The rest is mine.

Anyway, the current insanity about race and the Democratic Party ignores people like Senator Thurmond. My professor in political science was so angry at Senator Thurmond that she refused to attend his speech: the next day in class she started to tell us what he said and how much of a racist he was. Wrong! during his speech he said nothing about race: she just assumed that he had because of the Dixiecrat party he represented.

I raised my hand in class and told her that I had looked for her presence at the speech and concluded that she had not attended. She had to admit that was correct.

The point: Listen to others, and think about what is really happening.

We have come a long way since 1948, and we have a long way further to travel. My point about the Democratic Party today is valid because of the problems they fail to address in the larger cities. e.g, The political control of the City of Kansas City Missouri (where I live) by the Democratic Party has resulted in a school district in the inner city that everyone should be ashamed of. It is not an accredited school district. Every child who attends that school district, mostly black and poor whites, is cheated out of a proper education. Kansas City sits on the state line. Just over the state line, the Kansas Schools, (with the exception of Kansas City, Kansas - another mostly black community) offer a much better education, indeed some of the best in the country. Why? Because in Kansas City the white people had the opportunity to cross the state line and find a place to properly educate their children. No one can blame them: family always comes first. The point is: Why did they have to run across the state border? At the same time inner KCMO fell apart. KCMO could have improved their schools: they didn't; and you can blame that directly on the Democratic Party. The same problem exists in all cities controlled by the Democratic Party: they have cheated the negro out of the opportunities they deserve as an American citizen.

In the larger cities, I blame the education problem, and other problems, on the Democratic Party's desire of to limit the progress of the black person. If you doubt this, just look at the lack of progress in the American cities since WWII. During the last 75 years, Europe has rebuilt and poor countries have grown and passed the US in public education in our larger cities.

[burkalini]

If we think this is about racism we are being naive. It's all about power and control. If we stood back and see what's actually going on and to the extent that it's happening at then there would only be one candidate to consider and it's not the one that's been in politics for 38 years

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by burkalini

If we think this is about racism we are being naive. It's all about power and control. If we stood back and see what's actually going on and to the extent that it's happening at then there would only be one candidate to consider and it's not the one that's been in politics for 38 years

Of course, we all know that you are correct. But this particular thread started our about racism and the confederate flag. I responded to the ignorance with reason. You have cut off the head of the snake by going to the heart of the matter. These riots have been documented to be the work of world wide communists.

[bf0082]

racism isn't going to end, and the skin color is only a mask, it is not the people's color we discriminate against, it is their lack of wealth.

Any wealthy person, black, white, asian, latino, etc will look down on the poor, what racist remarks come from any white mans mouth would also be spoken by the same wealthy man of like color. It is obvious that money and wealth are true dividers. A white woman can talk bad all day about black men, using stereotypes and racist language, but if a star athlete, rapper or celebrity comes walking up to her from his classy limo, sports car, mansion, or jet, she would stfu and ride his bbc all night long....

Wealth is the creator of division, the wealthy want you to think it is race, it is not.... the wealthy black man says the same racist things about his poor race after they move into a white neighborhood and marry a white woman.... OJ Simpson, biggest black racist ever, and way more like him, well documented and widely known.

we have a poor problem, not a race issue and middle class white, wealthy whites call their poor white counterparts trailertrash and treat them like any other uneducated, poor person.

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

In the larger cities, I blame the education problem, and other problems, on the Democratic Party's desire of to limit the progress of the black person. If you doubt this, just look at the lack of progress in the American cities since WWII. During the last 75 years, Europe has rebuilt and poor countries have grown and passed the US in public education in our larger cities.

You are forgetting how Federal dollars are collected, then redistributed by the Congress in their budget.

These wealthy large democratic cities have the population and wealth, They send their tax dollars to the fed. NY for example sends apx 285 billion in federal tax to the congress for redistribution.

220 billion is kept into NY,. while the other 65 billion is spread out to rural red states, who can not afford to educate their children because their population isn't large enough and they require a lot more schools spread out....

I would have to believe that large cities ( democratic ) could spend that money from their own city better than the federal government. You literally praise red wellfare states who would be bankrupt without the success of large cities, then criticize the large city after their financial resources are stolen and handed out to Republican States.

that form of socialism is ok, because it keeps food subsidized, but we don't use those dirty words. Then we also praise our red states for low taxes on goods, no state tax and pretend everything is running smooth, obviously with our heads in the sand.

[burkalini]

Originally Posted by Lespaulmankc

I believe that racism will be diminished and possibly eventually eliminated when people of different races have more positive experiences together than negatives experiences. When people of different races become true friends and have empathy for the others are going through.

Quit watching Hannah Montana. Wishing is great but it has nothing to do with realit

[winn dixie]

There will always be racism. And perceived racism as well.

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

There will always be racism. And perceived racism as well.

I guess I should just kill myself. There no hope!

Depressing pessimism from the guy named after a grocery store chain.

LOL!