The Black Dilemma Not a Joke... Or Is It ?
Jul 13, 2015 11:46:36 #
I copied and paste this, it's an interesting artical.
By the way I am not a r****t but I believe portions of what is said.
​The Baltimore Sun is definitely not known as a Conservative newspaper. This very well written assessment of the situation in USA comes as something of a surprise.. some objective observations about other races that have come to the USA and successfully integrated into our society.
This article will obviously be called r****t, and will upset the liberals, but they should really think about the message and this deeply rational point of view.
The Black Dilemma
"For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class w****s.
The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into s***ery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?
The w****s were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former s***es had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.
Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedman's Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.
Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded w****s to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to R****m. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.
Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated b****s would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what b****s were capable of.
There is a Talented Tenth. They are the b***k A******ns who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.
Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And b****s never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.
Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, r**ting and l**ting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn't mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.
But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.
But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country's violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.
The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white r****m. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. *They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the r****m of others - but by their own hatred of non-b****s.*
Our leaders don't seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don't understand that white people aren't out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity. The liberal elites explain everything with r****m, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point."---
"You can't legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government doesn't first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don't have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Ian Duncan
The Baltimore Sun , May 30, 2015 ​
By the way I am not a r****t but I believe portions of what is said.
​The Baltimore Sun is definitely not known as a Conservative newspaper. This very well written assessment of the situation in USA comes as something of a surprise.. some objective observations about other races that have come to the USA and successfully integrated into our society.
This article will obviously be called r****t, and will upset the liberals, but they should really think about the message and this deeply rational point of view.
The Black Dilemma
"For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class w****s.
The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into s***ery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?
The w****s were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former s***es had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.
Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedman's Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.
Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded w****s to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to R****m. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.
Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated b****s would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what b****s were capable of.
There is a Talented Tenth. They are the b***k A******ns who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.
Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And b****s never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.
Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, r**ting and l**ting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn't mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.
But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.
But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country's violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.
The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white r****m. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. *They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the r****m of others - but by their own hatred of non-b****s.*
Our leaders don't seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don't understand that white people aren't out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity. The liberal elites explain everything with r****m, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point."---
"You can't legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government doesn't first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don't have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Ian Duncan
The Baltimore Sun , May 30, 2015 ​
Jul 13, 2015 11:59:38 #
Unfortunately, this was not written by Ian Duncan..... not anywhere to be found on the Baltimore Sun site, plus snopes has it being tossed around with multiple authors
Jul 13, 2015 12:04:30 #
Most all the programs that have been devised seem to have failed. The first thing the b****s have to do is take responsibility for their actions. I'm sure if a business has a choice between hiring a black or a white they would take the white person..That must get discouraging to the b****s. I have no answer for the problem for sure...Good article tho..Pretty much spot on.
Jul 13, 2015 12:09:19 #
Humility wrote:
Most all the programs that have been devised seem to have failed. The first thing the b****s have to do is take responsibility for their actions. I'm sure if a business has a choice between hiring a black or a white they would take the white person..That must get discouraging to the b****s. I have no answer for the problem for sure...Good article tho..Pretty much spot on.
Those GOP blogs love to spread lies.
While many online postings of the above-displayed article in June 2015 claimed that it had been recently published in Baltimore Sun, this article has actually been circulating on the Internet since at least September 2014, when it was published under the title Ten Percent Is Not Enough in the American Renaissance blog.
The American Renaissance posting was originally attributed to Anthony Bryan; but his name was stripped from versions shared via Internet forums, craigslist postings, and comments sections of several race-related articles. Several different authorial names have been attached to the piece, including John S. Mosby (a Confederate cavalry officer) and Edmund Hughes, but the article didnt truly go v***l until after the Baltimore Sun attribution was tacked on.
Read more at http://m.snopes.com/politics-soapbox-black-dilemma/#aQXBUliK5ZoyQIjd.99
Jul 13, 2015 12:20:30 #
moldyoldy wrote:
Unfortunately, this was not written by Ian Duncan..... not anywhere to be found on the Baltimore Sun site, plus snopes has it being tossed around with multiple authors
Regardless of who wrote it, one can't deny its t***hs.
Jul 13, 2015 12:31:43 #
PoppaGringo wrote:
Regardless of who wrote it, one can't deny its t***hs.
The t***h is, every program that is devised gets watered down before it can get passed. Designed to fail in the end.
Jul 13, 2015 12:41:39 #
Let me explain. I have recently made a discovery while watching the r**ts in Baltimore. I may have discovered something--or nothing. If I have or have not, you tell me.
In he past week I have put some words together and every time I edit it, it seems to have developed a life of its own in that it keeps growing and I don't know where it will end. I keep getting more and more ideas how it all fits together. I think if a person is objective and not emotional about race they may come to think I'm not way off base.
Anyway I'd like to send it to you herewith. I know I'm treading on tender ground--or souls --the subject it "touchy" --- it should not be, but we have made it so all because of a Court's blunder. I accuse Brown v Board of Education of the mess we've made between the races today. No one has ever made that connection before, but once the apparently disjointed pieces fit together, everyone will say "it's obvious." I fear in explaining my discovery the reader may think of me as a
member of the KKK ---even as I may be right. When charged with "r****m", in it's pedestrian form as a verb, if that's what I think I'm being accused of, I feel like Galileo .
One more caveat: You will have to pardon me--I regret I am not a good writer. I hope I'm not so prolix that you give up on me. Stay with me to the end.
I call it "The State of the B****s"........I was thinking of Theodore Herzl 's "The Jewish State", which, as you will read, the solution of r****m is not so far fetched as one might think.
PREFACE
As I watched the destructive r**ting in Baltimore I asked myself wh**ever gave these violent people the idea that they are being unlawfully deprived of equal justice and should to be treated like everyone else , that is, without discrimination Then it hit me: The Supreme Court! That's it! It all fit together. It took only 10 years for the terrible 60s to make it's appearance and the Civil Right's Legislation of 1964 to be made an article of law. For all practical purposes the society is still as r****t as ever. Look about you--have we integrated yet? For the most part communities are segregated, or, as is more factually correct to say, self-segregated. Schools, notwithstanding the court-ordered integration are said to be re-segregated. If all men are created equal why are we having some citizens destructively r**ting and civilly disobedient. Is this simply a matter of communication or are we experiencing a problem between the races ?
I will try to make my argument convincing by viewing the "race" problem from a more distant stance than having "walked" the streets of Baltimore or any urban city for the past 60 years.
The problem for a members of a race begins by being born into a society in which r****m , like the ambient air, is a consequence of a society having more than one race in the population for wh**ever reason. R****m is a system of privilege based on race. It becomes an existential fact of life. In a r****t society the race of a person determines the direction of privilege. It can be beneficial or discriminatory all as a matter of demographic proportion. In some r****t societies the direction of privilege is reversed.
It should not be surprising that people will resent the direction of the "privileges'' called "discrimination". Wh**ever fortuitous historical event -- as the S***e-Trade --
[ B****s to the Indies}--or immigration [ Muslims to Europe ] --- brought about the demographic dislocation is immaterial. Many B****s continually bring up the issue of s***ery to which their forebears was a victim as if that history constitutes a basis for monetary compensation, if not privilege. Would r****m end upon a payment? The question is rhetorical.
By the time Brown v The board of Education reached the Supreme Court the Justices saw a remedy in psychology and not by the rendition of rational jurisprudence. The Court's opinion has laid the foundation upon which resentment of discrimination becomes the rational to explain the r**ting in Baltimore. All the Court accomplished was to postpone the time period during which a solution might have been found for the unequal, hence unlawful, race problem.
THE STATE OF THE B****S
Let me begin by stating an unimpeachable fact: We live in an active r****t society . No one is denying that. In our society it is obvious that w****s are privileged and therefore we experience pervasive complaints of discrimination --and even "r**ts"--and all forms of real or presumed ine******y, because of race. Having established that as my basic premise permit me to proceed to my argument: I accuse the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 for the damage done to the welfare of B****s and the decision that enabled racial conflicts let loose on the country by holding there is no essential difference between school children of differing race but for the difference in public education as administered by the state.
"All men are created equal" Can we put this perpetually misunderstood and so a misquoted statement to rest. The Author of that statement never intended to mean the statement is to taken literally. It was a statement of art , a presupposition to advance a political objective. All men by direct observation are not created equal. Every human society, civilized or uncivilized, is not created equal and throughout history every society has had a system of class privilege based on something--a royal birth or impressive wealth or one's religion, or family contacts.... or even if based one's race should not come as a surprise.
Monarchism is a system of privilege based on birth. Plutocracy is a system of privilege based on wealth, Theocracy is a system of privilege based on religion, Nepotism is a system of privilege based on a personal relation R****m is a system of privilege based on race.
These social systems are not mutually exclusive and can be thought of as part of the ambient social environment as several systems of privilege will usually be found to be present or combined at any time in any society which is another fact of social systems of class privilege that is important to note. Some are but most are not reversible. I mean the rich who are privileged by wealth may become poor and the poor may become rich. But a Black cannot become a White or a White a Black but a Black can become rich and enjoy the privileges of wealth. Some theocratic systems can be unabashedly intolerant and restricted to the privileged religion and anyone not included among the privileged adherents may be subject as a matter of faith to physical violence as a consequence. A parallel can be offered in recalling the lynching of b****s not too long ago within our society of r****m by privileged w****s. Whereas in other systems of privilege an individual may be pleased that a system of privilege is part of his society if he happens to be a loyal subject to the Crown of England. I could go on with other combinations and examples but the point is made.
There are two ways of looking a different systems of privilege. We can view r****m from the point of view of the collective social order and alternately from the point of view of an individual within the collective. A society may have a system of privilege an aspect of the social order but it may not be acceptable to some individuals. Some individuals may be adverse to a specific system of privilege on wh**ever base practiced in the society. There is a fundamental lack of understanding between a system of privilege and it's consequences in discriminatory behavior on the part of society and on the part of some individuals.
Each system of privilege on wh**ever criteria --birth, religion, race, wealth --manifests itself in some form of discrimination or another. To discriminate is to be human. The discrimination may be expected by the nature of the society within which individuals relate one to the other but what is also true is individuals within the system of privilege may themselves be adverse to the social system of privilege and undertake programs -- even violent ones - to abolish the discriminatory system of privilege. Indeed, there have been many people ---White and Black --who dev**ed their lives and their fortunes to the abolition of s***ery , a classic example of race privilege, but that intriguing story is not relevant to pursue in detail at this time.
Even highly acclaimed writers have not been perceptive of the difference between a system of privilege and it's consequences. Here is a quote by Edward O. Wilson, Research Emeritus Professor at Harvard, about a human "inborn predisposition" : { My italics } Wilson , with impressively profound erudition, on the meaning of human existence writes:
"All things being equal people prefer to be with others who look like them, speak the same dialect and hold the same beliefs. The amplification of this evidently inborn { My italics } predisposition leads with frightening ease to r****m and religious bigotry" (The Meaning of Human Existence, Liveright Publishing, 2014, Page 31 )
This is a profound observation by an acclaimed Scientist and in reading it it seems almost self-evident, almost banal . But it is only partly right. The part Wilson misses is failing to make a distinction between r****m and discrimination. His error, if I may call it that, is failing to see one is not a synonym for the other, but a consequence. What the inborn predisposition leads to is not r****m-- r****m was already inborn and operating if a society is multi-racial --but r****m leads to discrimination between individuals. That is what is observable.
For Wilson to write " All things being equal people prefer to be with others who look like them, speak the same dialect and hold the same beliefs. " permits so easy an inference. Wilson is presupposing more than one race for his observation to have any meaning. Any society with more than one race will by definition be a r****t society. The only question then to be answered is who will be the ones privileged by race. The answer is to be discovered by observing the direction of privilege. To observe a society is r****t is not to say there is a inviolate "superior-inferior" relationship between the races. When given well defined attributes, the superior-inferior relation can be inverted and the direction of privilege reversed.
ESSENTIALISM V ANTI-ESSENTIALISM
What is regrettable about an inborn social system of r****m is for one to argue that r****m exists as natural as the ambient air makes one subject to the charge of "r****t!" even as the r****m is an operational fact of life. The charge is levied as a pejorative, an accusation that is supposed to silence any contrary argument as morally pernicious.
I am moved to conclude from a reading of the record that , in general, there is an essential difference between the races that many elitist intellectual professionals -- White and Black-- deny, especially in fiefdoms of the Academy and by politically progressive pundits with an agenda. Their position is there is no essential difference between people, "all men are created equal" is the usual misplaced irrelevant rejoinder [ I hope we have already dispensed with form of argument ]. Some individuals will argue there are no races in humankind --it's a all r****t invention --so the whole issue to them becomes meaningless. The Brown decision is proof, to my way of thinking, they are all wrong in their denial as I will explain below.
What has social integration achieved by the legal force of Brown's opinion rendered in the interest of equal justice by the social integration of school children? Nothing of significance. This becomes a hollow question as we probably have as many racial problems now between school children and in society at large as we had pre-Brown. If one selects the attribute of academics to study performance one is led inevitably to infer there must be some essential difference at work to account to for the unimpeachable statistical data on expected educational performance. When studies continue to report the same results time and again it becomes patently illogical to deny it or wish it away or argue other factors --"the usual suspects" -- a deficient family , police brutality, income ine******y , residencial segregation, the re-segregation of the schools and so forth -- all argued to explain the difference as non-essential. That form of denial does not convincingly prove there is no essential difference, but is only a feeble attempt to rationalize away the essential difference, and doing so somewhat disingenuously it seems to me. On some attributes the burden of inferiority may be difficult to bear by anyone not privileged. For some individuals it violates their sense of morality and is then willingly disbelieved It takes no intellectual effort to subject an empirical fact to a denial by a self-serving morality.
It should be clear to any disinterested observer that even if we concede all school issues are equal yet on other selected attributes it may be observed some black students may excel in reading comprehension with relative ease compared to some white students but they, in turn, may not get their and numbers as well or as quick. The education provided by the state may be equal, but the students have attributes and talents that are unequal, which is explained by an essential difference. Why is it so difficult to accept that people are different, and not merely by their unique fingerprints. We experience our differences without end daily--and at times differences can make for disagreements and disagreements can lead to disputes.
However the data of empirical- based scholastic testing cannot easily be set aside when the attribute in question is academic performance of school children, the e******y of which was the root desiderata of the Supreme Court's opinion. Sixty years after Brown we find all too frequently in one report after another a larger percent of minority students are drastically performing well below grade level in achievement in several major cities, and ever more so where the greater proportion of minority students are the majority in schools of the municipal population.
The anti-essentialist argument misses the point. The issue isn't between essentialists and anti-essentialists. Even if there were no essential differences , even if "all men are equal" there will always be a system of r****m and discrimination observable as a consequence if, and only if, the society is multi-racial. This is validated by evidential facts and everyday ordinary human action, as everyone can see. I don't think I can make the point any clearer.
Accordingly, we were destined to have evolved in due time --with a Ferguson or a Baltimore - into a Black "r**t-mode" manifestation that we are now witnessing and it is safe to predict it will only become worse all because of an egregiously clearly erroneous blunder rendered by the Supreme Court in Brown v Board of Education in 1954 that seems to have escaped everyone's attention of its relevancy to race relations today only because of the passage of time. The Brown decision was greeted by B****s with profuse jubilation. It was their deliverance from discrimination at last. Racial segregation --say R****m -- was declared illegal and happy days are here again. A lawyer for the petitioner was in time elevated to a seat on the Supreme Court. Yet I suspect future historians will note the irony that, but for Brown, sixty plus years of debilitating social strife and smoldering anger erupts into r**ts by B****s. Social r****m could have been avoided. Let me explain.
SEPARATE IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL
This off quoted phrase is generally and was easily misunderstood at the time. Separate what! That is the question. It was not separate school buildings the court had in mind. Everyone was too quick --too eager - to think the Court held segregation by race is inherently unequal. No! The Court was not addressing race, per se. It was only the separate different education that was administered in physical facilities by race that is "inherently unequal" in the delivery of public education. The Tallahassee Democrat was wrong. The Court did not ban segregation of children or anyone else. This misunderstanding was not made the subject of a public correction by legal scholars or the literary intelligentsia who understood well the distinction but remained mute or themselves were caught up in the wholly unwarranted euphoria of the times.
Everyone may have thought the petitioners were seeking racial e******y. They were not. The petitioners in Brown were seeking e******y - educational e******y - for elementary school children . The court's decision was grounded upon the studies of child psychologists, and ordered school children be given socialization e******y as the remedy for legal educational ine******y. That non-sequitur --that questionable leap from legal ine******y to socialized propinquity to obtain e******y in education by integration-- is the monumental blunder.
Even if there would be perfect e******y in black schools compared to the white schools in teacher training, in school books and equipment, in state expenditures per pupil --even then the Supreme Court held the public education received by the black students would be still be inferior to the same education the white students received so the black students are unequal in the education delivered by the state and therefore the ine******y is a violation of the equal protection of the law. It's that simple.
Yet that finely-tuned legal argument on constitutional principles left many equally competent judicial minds with "puzzlingly discomfiture" so writes Judge Richard Posner. " But" he says, " the Supreme Court's main opinion in the most important decision of the century was -- banal". ( Overcoming Law. Richard A. Posner, Page 62 )
I digress here to make a distinction. The digression is perhaps overly prolix but important. The Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to dictate how school children should be educated, integrated or otherwise. That is not the business of the Supreme Court. That is the function reserved to the States. The Supreme Court does have the authority to say whether the laws the States enact is or in not constitutional. What the court decided , therefore, was to strike down the laws the States adopted for educating school children in separate schools believing such laws made for ine******y and it was the unconstitutionality of the law that the Court attacked. The states were then enjoined from writing laws that result in unequal public education as inherently unequal-- and not necessarily in separate schools per se --and therefore the Court saw a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The primary question before the Court was the effect of public, free, compulsory school attendance if segregated by race on public education. Whether non-compulsory attendance at tuition-based, educational institutions segregated by race is also inherently unequal was not before the Court to decide. The Court decided, as the newspaper highlights, that legalized segregation of public schools by race results in unequal public education and so is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.
Why? Res Ipsa Loquitor. The Court may speak for itself. The following paragraphs, edited for clarity, is taken verbatim from the Court's written opinion. Observe I have italicized the term "public education" throughout as in my mind it is the key to understanding the Brown decision. The court reasoned as follows: [Case citations and U.S. Statutes and references omitted.]
"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to r****d the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system."
"To separate [ children ] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone"
"Wh**ever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. [The Court's modern authorities are cited ]: "K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Mid-century White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944)."
"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."
"Does segregation of [ children ] in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. "
[Even if ] "the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education"
[ My Emphasis]
Let me rephrase the point of it all. In summary the Court argued the little Black kiddies were not getting the same PUBLIC education at their school as the PUBLIC education the little white kiddies were getting at their school so, "Public to Public" , [ Apples -to-Apples ] education by the State has to be legally equal hence the Court says segregation by race is a violation of "equal protection"-- of EDUCATION. Be clear about this: The issue of equal protection or e******y between the races --Black-or-White - was not before the court to decide. The court did not say B****s have to be treated legally as if they are socially equal to W****s in all respects. That is the thought everyone wanted to read into the Court's Decision and in their wildest ecstasy and jubilation missed the main point. We're only talking about the narrowly defined decision on public versus private education . Compounding the misunderstanding with moral considerations --"what is the right thing to do" --we then experience without legal challenge the new found claims of "Civil Rights". In a few years after the Decision new ways of interpreting the word "Separate" was easy to come by --no separate restrooms, no separate drinking fountains, no separate bus seating, no separate Black only -White only signs of any kind. and so on. It was so easy to think any form of discrimination was inherently unequal. The Civil Rights efforts was dev**ed to end the discriminatory Jin Crow laws which would never ended r****m. The B****s would have been better advised to expend their energy to rid themselves of social r****m. We will come to that argument shortly.
And from 1954 till today the B****s have still been the less privileged and discriminated members of society. I say to you emphatically -- in spite of all the civil rights laws, marches, protests, and however the many r**ts, the B****s have been disadvantaged by the Court's blunder and no one has made the connection. The B****s have been swimming against the tide and their leadership mistakenly encourages them to swim even faster--and still they get -- and will get --nowhere. What was the blunder? It was to think that socialized propinquity of children -- forced school integration --will make us all socially equal The consequential tragedy? This country has suffered 60 years of self-inflicted race problems that could have been avoided. What do we observe in our communities? The residential communities and schools are as segregated today as they were in 1954--for all practical purposes. I will offer an explanation of that predictable intractable situation later; it is not happenstance or discrimination that accounts for residential segregation.
Whether the Court was right or wrong is no longer relevant because integrating the races in schools became the remedy as a matter of law ; by force, if necessary, at the point of a bayonet. Within a few years Brown soon become the basis of the never ending litany of complaints by Civil Rights activists. For over 60 years "Black r****rs" with good reason, experience the reality of social discrimination and ine******y in their everyday living Failure to confront and acknowledge an essential difference between the races has consigned the Black race to years of continual discrimination. I takes a r**t to get attention but a r**t is not a solution, only a symptom of discrimination because of r****m.
Thinking of "black r**ts" --Ferguson, Baltimore -I am reminded of lines by Heinrich Heine, written on the eve of the French Revolution in 1848. Heine writes:
In the darkness there can be heard a soft monotonous dripping.
It is the profits of the Capitalists continually trickling in continuously mounting up.
And on can hear too, in between, the soft low sobs of the destitute and now and then a harsher sound,
like a knife being sharpened
THE SOLUTION : RECOGNIZING REALITY
Like Plato's shadows on the wall the Black's first fallacy is they collectively failed to see the reality affecting them. Their second fallacy follows as a result of the first --misunderstanding reality caused primarily by the Court's social theory blunder to achieve e******y which is impossible in a r****t society because e******y and privilege are mutually exclusive. The B****s are consigned to a Sisyphean existence; no matter how many times B****s r**ts and complain of inequalities they will still r**t over and over again. What is the reality?
I'll state it as blunt as I can. NOW HEAR THIS: The reality is the impossibility of racial assimilation.
My conclusion may shock the sensibility of the reader and be painful to read - or even stridently resented as offensive--as "r****t" - but that, and no other reason -- once clearly understood - explains the insoluble "race problem", notwithstanding years of ululating by B****s and W****s over the consequences of r****m. Notwithstanding the few B****s that have excelled in Academia. Notwithstanding the gradual difference in the visual appearance of B****s in television either in advertising media or as on screen commentators suggesting equal proportion of the races in media employment . If we are searching for root causes for present effects we need to begin with the change in racial demographics occasioned by the West -- and East Indian--African S***e Trade. S***ery was an inhuman bondage affecting both White and Black. The number of B****s captured, ens***ed and deposited in the American colonies was a trivial number, which usually comes as a surprise to everyone. -- roughly only 500,000 -- of the estimated 12,000,000 b****s that was t***sported from West Africa to the New World. But that is also another engaging part of history but also irrelevant at this point to my story.
There is no doubt the logical and only solution now is segregation, re-colonization or nationalization. One or another of these feasible solutions would have occurred over time by the natural process of self-se******n but for the Court's blunder.
I am not the first person, Black or White, to come to this conclusion. There were many attempts to re-colonize B****s to the Caribbean or to Sierra Leona in West Africa even as early as the 18th century by British Abolitionists. The U.S. Congress and Abraham Lincoln had proposed plans for repatriation of Free B****s. Furthermore, as recent as 1968 a plan to establish a new nation called the Republic of New Africa to consist of five middle Atlantic states was promoted by many articulate B****s. And as for segregation, we are still for the most part a self-segregated society with unresolved problems of r****m. The sooner a final solution is effected the better will be the life of B****s -- and a long overdue national sigh of relief from all of us, both Black and White, and with the White's blessings.
The maxim that accounts for the root cause of inter-personal residential relations by race is this: "W****s will not live with B****s, but B****s do not care if they live with w****s." From this comes "white-flight" and a host of other racial derivative problems, which is another long story by itself.
A final thought: Will the "race problem" be ever solved ? Yes, perhaps--in about 15,000 or more years. The evolution of humans has been generally thought to have completed itself about 50 to 60,000 years ago . There are some seven hundred regions of the human genome where genes have been reshaped by natural se******n within the past 5000 to 15,000 years. These genes include some of those responsible for our senses of taste and smell, digestion bone structure, shin color and brain function, One of the great emancipating results of genomics as to show that all "racial" and color differences are recent, superficial, and misleading. More fascinating and enlightening discoveries will be made in this burgeoning field. In time all this will be further clarified if we are modest and patient enough to understand the building blocks of nature and the lowly stamp of our origin. [ God Is Not Great", Christopher Hitchens, Page 95. My editing. ]
Martin Kessler
mdk4130@aol.com
In he past week I have put some words together and every time I edit it, it seems to have developed a life of its own in that it keeps growing and I don't know where it will end. I keep getting more and more ideas how it all fits together. I think if a person is objective and not emotional about race they may come to think I'm not way off base.
Anyway I'd like to send it to you herewith. I know I'm treading on tender ground--or souls --the subject it "touchy" --- it should not be, but we have made it so all because of a Court's blunder. I accuse Brown v Board of Education of the mess we've made between the races today. No one has ever made that connection before, but once the apparently disjointed pieces fit together, everyone will say "it's obvious." I fear in explaining my discovery the reader may think of me as a
member of the KKK ---even as I may be right. When charged with "r****m", in it's pedestrian form as a verb, if that's what I think I'm being accused of, I feel like Galileo .
One more caveat: You will have to pardon me--I regret I am not a good writer. I hope I'm not so prolix that you give up on me. Stay with me to the end.
I call it "The State of the B****s"........I was thinking of Theodore Herzl 's "The Jewish State", which, as you will read, the solution of r****m is not so far fetched as one might think.
PREFACE
As I watched the destructive r**ting in Baltimore I asked myself wh**ever gave these violent people the idea that they are being unlawfully deprived of equal justice and should to be treated like everyone else , that is, without discrimination Then it hit me: The Supreme Court! That's it! It all fit together. It took only 10 years for the terrible 60s to make it's appearance and the Civil Right's Legislation of 1964 to be made an article of law. For all practical purposes the society is still as r****t as ever. Look about you--have we integrated yet? For the most part communities are segregated, or, as is more factually correct to say, self-segregated. Schools, notwithstanding the court-ordered integration are said to be re-segregated. If all men are created equal why are we having some citizens destructively r**ting and civilly disobedient. Is this simply a matter of communication or are we experiencing a problem between the races ?
I will try to make my argument convincing by viewing the "race" problem from a more distant stance than having "walked" the streets of Baltimore or any urban city for the past 60 years.
The problem for a members of a race begins by being born into a society in which r****m , like the ambient air, is a consequence of a society having more than one race in the population for wh**ever reason. R****m is a system of privilege based on race. It becomes an existential fact of life. In a r****t society the race of a person determines the direction of privilege. It can be beneficial or discriminatory all as a matter of demographic proportion. In some r****t societies the direction of privilege is reversed.
It should not be surprising that people will resent the direction of the "privileges'' called "discrimination". Wh**ever fortuitous historical event -- as the S***e-Trade --
[ B****s to the Indies}--or immigration [ Muslims to Europe ] --- brought about the demographic dislocation is immaterial. Many B****s continually bring up the issue of s***ery to which their forebears was a victim as if that history constitutes a basis for monetary compensation, if not privilege. Would r****m end upon a payment? The question is rhetorical.
By the time Brown v The board of Education reached the Supreme Court the Justices saw a remedy in psychology and not by the rendition of rational jurisprudence. The Court's opinion has laid the foundation upon which resentment of discrimination becomes the rational to explain the r**ting in Baltimore. All the Court accomplished was to postpone the time period during which a solution might have been found for the unequal, hence unlawful, race problem.
THE STATE OF THE B****S
Let me begin by stating an unimpeachable fact: We live in an active r****t society . No one is denying that. In our society it is obvious that w****s are privileged and therefore we experience pervasive complaints of discrimination --and even "r**ts"--and all forms of real or presumed ine******y, because of race. Having established that as my basic premise permit me to proceed to my argument: I accuse the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 for the damage done to the welfare of B****s and the decision that enabled racial conflicts let loose on the country by holding there is no essential difference between school children of differing race but for the difference in public education as administered by the state.
"All men are created equal" Can we put this perpetually misunderstood and so a misquoted statement to rest. The Author of that statement never intended to mean the statement is to taken literally. It was a statement of art , a presupposition to advance a political objective. All men by direct observation are not created equal. Every human society, civilized or uncivilized, is not created equal and throughout history every society has had a system of class privilege based on something--a royal birth or impressive wealth or one's religion, or family contacts.... or even if based one's race should not come as a surprise.
Monarchism is a system of privilege based on birth. Plutocracy is a system of privilege based on wealth, Theocracy is a system of privilege based on religion, Nepotism is a system of privilege based on a personal relation R****m is a system of privilege based on race.
These social systems are not mutually exclusive and can be thought of as part of the ambient social environment as several systems of privilege will usually be found to be present or combined at any time in any society which is another fact of social systems of class privilege that is important to note. Some are but most are not reversible. I mean the rich who are privileged by wealth may become poor and the poor may become rich. But a Black cannot become a White or a White a Black but a Black can become rich and enjoy the privileges of wealth. Some theocratic systems can be unabashedly intolerant and restricted to the privileged religion and anyone not included among the privileged adherents may be subject as a matter of faith to physical violence as a consequence. A parallel can be offered in recalling the lynching of b****s not too long ago within our society of r****m by privileged w****s. Whereas in other systems of privilege an individual may be pleased that a system of privilege is part of his society if he happens to be a loyal subject to the Crown of England. I could go on with other combinations and examples but the point is made.
There are two ways of looking a different systems of privilege. We can view r****m from the point of view of the collective social order and alternately from the point of view of an individual within the collective. A society may have a system of privilege an aspect of the social order but it may not be acceptable to some individuals. Some individuals may be adverse to a specific system of privilege on wh**ever base practiced in the society. There is a fundamental lack of understanding between a system of privilege and it's consequences in discriminatory behavior on the part of society and on the part of some individuals.
Each system of privilege on wh**ever criteria --birth, religion, race, wealth --manifests itself in some form of discrimination or another. To discriminate is to be human. The discrimination may be expected by the nature of the society within which individuals relate one to the other but what is also true is individuals within the system of privilege may themselves be adverse to the social system of privilege and undertake programs -- even violent ones - to abolish the discriminatory system of privilege. Indeed, there have been many people ---White and Black --who dev**ed their lives and their fortunes to the abolition of s***ery , a classic example of race privilege, but that intriguing story is not relevant to pursue in detail at this time.
Even highly acclaimed writers have not been perceptive of the difference between a system of privilege and it's consequences. Here is a quote by Edward O. Wilson, Research Emeritus Professor at Harvard, about a human "inborn predisposition" : { My italics } Wilson , with impressively profound erudition, on the meaning of human existence writes:
"All things being equal people prefer to be with others who look like them, speak the same dialect and hold the same beliefs. The amplification of this evidently inborn { My italics } predisposition leads with frightening ease to r****m and religious bigotry" (The Meaning of Human Existence, Liveright Publishing, 2014, Page 31 )
This is a profound observation by an acclaimed Scientist and in reading it it seems almost self-evident, almost banal . But it is only partly right. The part Wilson misses is failing to make a distinction between r****m and discrimination. His error, if I may call it that, is failing to see one is not a synonym for the other, but a consequence. What the inborn predisposition leads to is not r****m-- r****m was already inborn and operating if a society is multi-racial --but r****m leads to discrimination between individuals. That is what is observable.
For Wilson to write " All things being equal people prefer to be with others who look like them, speak the same dialect and hold the same beliefs. " permits so easy an inference. Wilson is presupposing more than one race for his observation to have any meaning. Any society with more than one race will by definition be a r****t society. The only question then to be answered is who will be the ones privileged by race. The answer is to be discovered by observing the direction of privilege. To observe a society is r****t is not to say there is a inviolate "superior-inferior" relationship between the races. When given well defined attributes, the superior-inferior relation can be inverted and the direction of privilege reversed.
ESSENTIALISM V ANTI-ESSENTIALISM
What is regrettable about an inborn social system of r****m is for one to argue that r****m exists as natural as the ambient air makes one subject to the charge of "r****t!" even as the r****m is an operational fact of life. The charge is levied as a pejorative, an accusation that is supposed to silence any contrary argument as morally pernicious.
I am moved to conclude from a reading of the record that , in general, there is an essential difference between the races that many elitist intellectual professionals -- White and Black-- deny, especially in fiefdoms of the Academy and by politically progressive pundits with an agenda. Their position is there is no essential difference between people, "all men are created equal" is the usual misplaced irrelevant rejoinder [ I hope we have already dispensed with form of argument ]. Some individuals will argue there are no races in humankind --it's a all r****t invention --so the whole issue to them becomes meaningless. The Brown decision is proof, to my way of thinking, they are all wrong in their denial as I will explain below.
What has social integration achieved by the legal force of Brown's opinion rendered in the interest of equal justice by the social integration of school children? Nothing of significance. This becomes a hollow question as we probably have as many racial problems now between school children and in society at large as we had pre-Brown. If one selects the attribute of academics to study performance one is led inevitably to infer there must be some essential difference at work to account to for the unimpeachable statistical data on expected educational performance. When studies continue to report the same results time and again it becomes patently illogical to deny it or wish it away or argue other factors --"the usual suspects" -- a deficient family , police brutality, income ine******y , residencial segregation, the re-segregation of the schools and so forth -- all argued to explain the difference as non-essential. That form of denial does not convincingly prove there is no essential difference, but is only a feeble attempt to rationalize away the essential difference, and doing so somewhat disingenuously it seems to me. On some attributes the burden of inferiority may be difficult to bear by anyone not privileged. For some individuals it violates their sense of morality and is then willingly disbelieved It takes no intellectual effort to subject an empirical fact to a denial by a self-serving morality.
It should be clear to any disinterested observer that even if we concede all school issues are equal yet on other selected attributes it may be observed some black students may excel in reading comprehension with relative ease compared to some white students but they, in turn, may not get their and numbers as well or as quick. The education provided by the state may be equal, but the students have attributes and talents that are unequal, which is explained by an essential difference. Why is it so difficult to accept that people are different, and not merely by their unique fingerprints. We experience our differences without end daily--and at times differences can make for disagreements and disagreements can lead to disputes.
However the data of empirical- based scholastic testing cannot easily be set aside when the attribute in question is academic performance of school children, the e******y of which was the root desiderata of the Supreme Court's opinion. Sixty years after Brown we find all too frequently in one report after another a larger percent of minority students are drastically performing well below grade level in achievement in several major cities, and ever more so where the greater proportion of minority students are the majority in schools of the municipal population.
The anti-essentialist argument misses the point. The issue isn't between essentialists and anti-essentialists. Even if there were no essential differences , even if "all men are equal" there will always be a system of r****m and discrimination observable as a consequence if, and only if, the society is multi-racial. This is validated by evidential facts and everyday ordinary human action, as everyone can see. I don't think I can make the point any clearer.
Accordingly, we were destined to have evolved in due time --with a Ferguson or a Baltimore - into a Black "r**t-mode" manifestation that we are now witnessing and it is safe to predict it will only become worse all because of an egregiously clearly erroneous blunder rendered by the Supreme Court in Brown v Board of Education in 1954 that seems to have escaped everyone's attention of its relevancy to race relations today only because of the passage of time. The Brown decision was greeted by B****s with profuse jubilation. It was their deliverance from discrimination at last. Racial segregation --say R****m -- was declared illegal and happy days are here again. A lawyer for the petitioner was in time elevated to a seat on the Supreme Court. Yet I suspect future historians will note the irony that, but for Brown, sixty plus years of debilitating social strife and smoldering anger erupts into r**ts by B****s. Social r****m could have been avoided. Let me explain.
SEPARATE IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL
This off quoted phrase is generally and was easily misunderstood at the time. Separate what! That is the question. It was not separate school buildings the court had in mind. Everyone was too quick --too eager - to think the Court held segregation by race is inherently unequal. No! The Court was not addressing race, per se. It was only the separate different education that was administered in physical facilities by race that is "inherently unequal" in the delivery of public education. The Tallahassee Democrat was wrong. The Court did not ban segregation of children or anyone else. This misunderstanding was not made the subject of a public correction by legal scholars or the literary intelligentsia who understood well the distinction but remained mute or themselves were caught up in the wholly unwarranted euphoria of the times.
Everyone may have thought the petitioners were seeking racial e******y. They were not. The petitioners in Brown were seeking e******y - educational e******y - for elementary school children . The court's decision was grounded upon the studies of child psychologists, and ordered school children be given socialization e******y as the remedy for legal educational ine******y. That non-sequitur --that questionable leap from legal ine******y to socialized propinquity to obtain e******y in education by integration-- is the monumental blunder.
Even if there would be perfect e******y in black schools compared to the white schools in teacher training, in school books and equipment, in state expenditures per pupil --even then the Supreme Court held the public education received by the black students would be still be inferior to the same education the white students received so the black students are unequal in the education delivered by the state and therefore the ine******y is a violation of the equal protection of the law. It's that simple.
Yet that finely-tuned legal argument on constitutional principles left many equally competent judicial minds with "puzzlingly discomfiture" so writes Judge Richard Posner. " But" he says, " the Supreme Court's main opinion in the most important decision of the century was -- banal". ( Overcoming Law. Richard A. Posner, Page 62 )
I digress here to make a distinction. The digression is perhaps overly prolix but important. The Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to dictate how school children should be educated, integrated or otherwise. That is not the business of the Supreme Court. That is the function reserved to the States. The Supreme Court does have the authority to say whether the laws the States enact is or in not constitutional. What the court decided , therefore, was to strike down the laws the States adopted for educating school children in separate schools believing such laws made for ine******y and it was the unconstitutionality of the law that the Court attacked. The states were then enjoined from writing laws that result in unequal public education as inherently unequal-- and not necessarily in separate schools per se --and therefore the Court saw a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The primary question before the Court was the effect of public, free, compulsory school attendance if segregated by race on public education. Whether non-compulsory attendance at tuition-based, educational institutions segregated by race is also inherently unequal was not before the Court to decide. The Court decided, as the newspaper highlights, that legalized segregation of public schools by race results in unequal public education and so is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.
Why? Res Ipsa Loquitor. The Court may speak for itself. The following paragraphs, edited for clarity, is taken verbatim from the Court's written opinion. Observe I have italicized the term "public education" throughout as in my mind it is the key to understanding the Brown decision. The court reasoned as follows: [Case citations and U.S. Statutes and references omitted.]
"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to r****d the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system."
"To separate [ children ] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone"
"Wh**ever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. [The Court's modern authorities are cited ]: "K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Mid-century White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944)."
"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."
"Does segregation of [ children ] in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. "
[Even if ] "the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education"
[ My Emphasis]
Let me rephrase the point of it all. In summary the Court argued the little Black kiddies were not getting the same PUBLIC education at their school as the PUBLIC education the little white kiddies were getting at their school so, "Public to Public" , [ Apples -to-Apples ] education by the State has to be legally equal hence the Court says segregation by race is a violation of "equal protection"-- of EDUCATION. Be clear about this: The issue of equal protection or e******y between the races --Black-or-White - was not before the court to decide. The court did not say B****s have to be treated legally as if they are socially equal to W****s in all respects. That is the thought everyone wanted to read into the Court's Decision and in their wildest ecstasy and jubilation missed the main point. We're only talking about the narrowly defined decision on public versus private education . Compounding the misunderstanding with moral considerations --"what is the right thing to do" --we then experience without legal challenge the new found claims of "Civil Rights". In a few years after the Decision new ways of interpreting the word "Separate" was easy to come by --no separate restrooms, no separate drinking fountains, no separate bus seating, no separate Black only -White only signs of any kind. and so on. It was so easy to think any form of discrimination was inherently unequal. The Civil Rights efforts was dev**ed to end the discriminatory Jin Crow laws which would never ended r****m. The B****s would have been better advised to expend their energy to rid themselves of social r****m. We will come to that argument shortly.
And from 1954 till today the B****s have still been the less privileged and discriminated members of society. I say to you emphatically -- in spite of all the civil rights laws, marches, protests, and however the many r**ts, the B****s have been disadvantaged by the Court's blunder and no one has made the connection. The B****s have been swimming against the tide and their leadership mistakenly encourages them to swim even faster--and still they get -- and will get --nowhere. What was the blunder? It was to think that socialized propinquity of children -- forced school integration --will make us all socially equal The consequential tragedy? This country has suffered 60 years of self-inflicted race problems that could have been avoided. What do we observe in our communities? The residential communities and schools are as segregated today as they were in 1954--for all practical purposes. I will offer an explanation of that predictable intractable situation later; it is not happenstance or discrimination that accounts for residential segregation.
Whether the Court was right or wrong is no longer relevant because integrating the races in schools became the remedy as a matter of law ; by force, if necessary, at the point of a bayonet. Within a few years Brown soon become the basis of the never ending litany of complaints by Civil Rights activists. For over 60 years "Black r****rs" with good reason, experience the reality of social discrimination and ine******y in their everyday living Failure to confront and acknowledge an essential difference between the races has consigned the Black race to years of continual discrimination. I takes a r**t to get attention but a r**t is not a solution, only a symptom of discrimination because of r****m.
Thinking of "black r**ts" --Ferguson, Baltimore -I am reminded of lines by Heinrich Heine, written on the eve of the French Revolution in 1848. Heine writes:
In the darkness there can be heard a soft monotonous dripping.
It is the profits of the Capitalists continually trickling in continuously mounting up.
And on can hear too, in between, the soft low sobs of the destitute and now and then a harsher sound,
like a knife being sharpened
THE SOLUTION : RECOGNIZING REALITY
Like Plato's shadows on the wall the Black's first fallacy is they collectively failed to see the reality affecting them. Their second fallacy follows as a result of the first --misunderstanding reality caused primarily by the Court's social theory blunder to achieve e******y which is impossible in a r****t society because e******y and privilege are mutually exclusive. The B****s are consigned to a Sisyphean existence; no matter how many times B****s r**ts and complain of inequalities they will still r**t over and over again. What is the reality?
I'll state it as blunt as I can. NOW HEAR THIS: The reality is the impossibility of racial assimilation.
My conclusion may shock the sensibility of the reader and be painful to read - or even stridently resented as offensive--as "r****t" - but that, and no other reason -- once clearly understood - explains the insoluble "race problem", notwithstanding years of ululating by B****s and W****s over the consequences of r****m. Notwithstanding the few B****s that have excelled in Academia. Notwithstanding the gradual difference in the visual appearance of B****s in television either in advertising media or as on screen commentators suggesting equal proportion of the races in media employment . If we are searching for root causes for present effects we need to begin with the change in racial demographics occasioned by the West -- and East Indian--African S***e Trade. S***ery was an inhuman bondage affecting both White and Black. The number of B****s captured, ens***ed and deposited in the American colonies was a trivial number, which usually comes as a surprise to everyone. -- roughly only 500,000 -- of the estimated 12,000,000 b****s that was t***sported from West Africa to the New World. But that is also another engaging part of history but also irrelevant at this point to my story.
There is no doubt the logical and only solution now is segregation, re-colonization or nationalization. One or another of these feasible solutions would have occurred over time by the natural process of self-se******n but for the Court's blunder.
I am not the first person, Black or White, to come to this conclusion. There were many attempts to re-colonize B****s to the Caribbean or to Sierra Leona in West Africa even as early as the 18th century by British Abolitionists. The U.S. Congress and Abraham Lincoln had proposed plans for repatriation of Free B****s. Furthermore, as recent as 1968 a plan to establish a new nation called the Republic of New Africa to consist of five middle Atlantic states was promoted by many articulate B****s. And as for segregation, we are still for the most part a self-segregated society with unresolved problems of r****m. The sooner a final solution is effected the better will be the life of B****s -- and a long overdue national sigh of relief from all of us, both Black and White, and with the White's blessings.
The maxim that accounts for the root cause of inter-personal residential relations by race is this: "W****s will not live with B****s, but B****s do not care if they live with w****s." From this comes "white-flight" and a host of other racial derivative problems, which is another long story by itself.
A final thought: Will the "race problem" be ever solved ? Yes, perhaps--in about 15,000 or more years. The evolution of humans has been generally thought to have completed itself about 50 to 60,000 years ago . There are some seven hundred regions of the human genome where genes have been reshaped by natural se******n within the past 5000 to 15,000 years. These genes include some of those responsible for our senses of taste and smell, digestion bone structure, shin color and brain function, One of the great emancipating results of genomics as to show that all "racial" and color differences are recent, superficial, and misleading. More fascinating and enlightening discoveries will be made in this burgeoning field. In time all this will be further clarified if we are modest and patient enough to understand the building blocks of nature and the lowly stamp of our origin. [ God Is Not Great", Christopher Hitchens, Page 95. My editing. ]
Martin Kessler
mdk4130@aol.com
Jul 13, 2015 12:42:46 #
Jul 13, 2015 12:45:36 #
Jul 13, 2015 12:45:36 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
For a change, you are right. It was actually written by Anthony Bryan, American Renaissance, September 23, 2014 and the title was 10 Percent is Not Enough. http://www.amren.com/news/2014/09/ten-percent-is-not-enough/
Regardless of who wrote or published this well written article, it is true. You may not like what it says, but when you think about each point, one can not argue the facts presented. The experiment has failed and there is no way to work around problems that are genetic. T***h is, better parenting would change some actions, but even that would not be sufficient. Better schools is not an answer, if the student is unwilling to learn. Moving people from their comfort zone of inner cities to the burbs will cause them hardships with issues of resistance to change will only cause more discontent. Tossing more money at the problem will only ingrain more dependence on the government.
I have often thought about this issue and wondered why the b****s in Europe do not have the same difficulties as those in the US. I come to realize that Europe did not just set their s***es free and expect them to have the abilities to survive on their own. Their freedom came gradually when they had shown signs of desire to accumulate. And they have, most have become fully adapted and responsible members of society. Only here, because the Yankees would not allow, were the b****s just dumped into society.
Regardless of who wrote or published this well written article, it is true. You may not like what it says, but when you think about each point, one can not argue the facts presented. The experiment has failed and there is no way to work around problems that are genetic. T***h is, better parenting would change some actions, but even that would not be sufficient. Better schools is not an answer, if the student is unwilling to learn. Moving people from their comfort zone of inner cities to the burbs will cause them hardships with issues of resistance to change will only cause more discontent. Tossing more money at the problem will only ingrain more dependence on the government.
I have often thought about this issue and wondered why the b****s in Europe do not have the same difficulties as those in the US. I come to realize that Europe did not just set their s***es free and expect them to have the abilities to survive on their own. Their freedom came gradually when they had shown signs of desire to accumulate. And they have, most have become fully adapted and responsible members of society. Only here, because the Yankees would not allow, were the b****s just dumped into society.
moldyoldy wrote:
Unfortunately, this was not written by Ian Duncan..... not anywhere to be found on the Baltimore Sun site, plus snopes has it being tossed around with multiple authors
Jul 13, 2015 13:17:52 #
moldyoldy wrote:
Those GOP blogs love to spread lies. br br br Wh... (show quote)
moldyoldy...what do you mean "Those GOP blogs love to spread lies"? Are you inferring that democrat blogs only spread t***h? It has been the democrats primarily doing the experimentation on the Black Race & have failed. And for thepast 6 or 7 yrs the USA has had a "so called black president" & it hasn't gotten one iota better...I've listened to b****s in a public forum chastise Obama for his poor work in the WH...
Jul 13, 2015 13:29:34 #
Mdk4130 wrote:
Let me explain. I have recently made a discovery w... (show quote)
A lot to read, but worth it.
Jul 13, 2015 13:41:39 #
I've really enjoy reading all the replies to this article. I like the research some of you have done and also just from the heart feelings of some of you...
Lets all work together.
Lets all work together.
Jul 13, 2015 14:06:12 #
timmh67 wrote:
I copied and paste this, it's an interesting artic... (show quote)
The first few years of reconstruction 16 b****s served in congress and 600 in state legislatures. B****s own farms and local businesses. B****s went to school where grandparents learned to read with their grandchildren. For all extent and purposes B****s were successfully integrating into what was previously a 'w****s only' society. It's this success that predicated the formation of Jim Crow and the John Burch Society for the specific purpose of destroying any and all accomplishments that b****s might make. This was the case for the next 100 plus years and while it was bad enough that southern W****s partook in this discrimination northern w****s often weren't much different. As such, you have a situation where no matter where you went you were ostracized and treated as a second rate citizen who deserved to fail.
So are b****s today simply incapable of functioning at the level of w****s or are they actually genetically inferior? Well, I think genetics has little to do with it and more we are looking at the effect of where a people were continually demeaned, degraded, and regarded as subhuman by their white counterparts. Discrimination is the greatest evil this country has had to face and we can still see it's effects on all the people of this country today. The 'failure' of b****s today is purely due to the failure of w****s to welcome b****s as an equal citizen. If you want to change the attitude of poor b****s then you have to change the attitudes of their contemporary white counterpart. And that, unfortunately is very slow to happen...
Jul 13, 2015 14:34:41 #
Comment
Loc: California
moldyoldy wrote:
Unfortunately, this was not written by Ian Duncan..... not anywhere to be found on the Baltimore Sun site, plus snopes has it being tossed around with multiple authors
I don't care who wrote it. It's a true statement. Look at the dumb negro r****t on OPP. They are all Dumocraps!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.