October 19, 2004

Do white folk want Affirmative Action back in Texas?

.

Could it be true? Are white folk that once opposed affirmative Action in Texas now in favor of it? What would make a group of white folk change so drastically after fighting so hard to remove Affirmative Action? The history of Affirmative Action in Texas goes something like this; In 1996 Cheryl Hopwood, a white woman sued the University of Texas on the grounds that she was rejected solely on the basis of her race. As with most Affirmative Action cases, she did not sue the school for letting other white folk in with inferior test scores and so on, she went after those who got in because of Affirmative Action because she know damn well not one of those Black and Latino students deserve to be in the school more than her. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor thus ending Affirmative Action in Texas.

After the end of Affirmative Action in Texas the state legislature went to work to devise an alternative plan that would give Black and Latino students a better chance at getting into Texas Colleges and Universities. The state legislature came up with the Top Ten percent plan. This plan stated that the top ten percent of every graduating High School class was guaranteed admission into any public Texas College or University of their choice. In 1997 the Governor of the state of Texas, George Bush signed this plan into law. In the beginning there was much criticism of this law; various studies were done to prove the law was not doing what affirmative action had done and that Black and Latino student enrollment had failed in comparison to pre Hopwood days. The studies were correct, enrollment had failed in comparison to pre Hopwood, but as the years went by things changed and by 2001 Black and Latino student enrolment was not only back up to pre-Hopwood days, it had surpassed them, and here lies the problem.

The top ten percent plan is working so well now that white folks are now petitioning to have it reduced or capped and some are petitioning to have it out right revoked, even though more white students are benefiting from it than Black and Latino. Here is the burner; some of them are espousing using pre-Hopwood standards, meaning using Affirmative Action as it once was in order to get rid of the top ten percent plan. (We can not win for loosing with white folk in Texas.) The reason why these particular white folk want to get rid of the Top Ten Percent plan is they have spent all their money buying homes in affluent communities so that their children can go to the best schools but what they are finding out is their children while graduating with a 3.9 GPA, taking Advance Placement courses and scoring decent on the SAT are not in the top ten percent of their class, thus they do not get a guaranteed seat in any of the Public Colleges or Universities in Texas. However, down in the city where all the Black and Latino students attend School, students are graduating with a 3.4 GPA, no advance placement courses and low SAT scores but still graduate in the top ten percent of their class and get a guaranteed seat in any Public College or University.

State Senator Jeff Wentworth is leading the fight to repeal the top ten percent plan. During his interview on 60 minutes he espoused many preconceived notions about Black and Latino students being accepted to state Colleges and University under plans like the one in Texas and Affirmative Action. Senator Wentworth stated without checking his facts that “some of the students who get into the state Flagship University are not prepared academically for the rigorous training they get at that higher educational institution and some of them don’t last, they wine up quitting very frustrated because they were not prepared.” However the statistics at the University of Texas contradict the Senator. Larry Faulkner the president of the University of Texas was confronted with the Senators statements and President Faulkner stated, “The students from the “minority” schools do well at the University of Texas” he then went on to say “if you reach the top ten percent of your H.S. class, you know how to work, you know how to organize your time and those two things count a lot in an institutions like the University of Texas”. Mr. Faulkner was then asked does the top ten percent law dumb down the University of Texas, he said “he do not believe it dumb downs the University of Texas, We have the highest graduation rate in the history of the University, we have the highest four year graduation rate in the history of the university, we have the highest freshman retention rate in the history of the University.” The white reporter then commented that none of that says anything about the quality of the students, (you see how evil these people are). President Faulkner said in response to her dismissal and degrading of the quality of students being admitted, that “We have the highest SAT scores in the history of the University, and we have the highest class rank in the history of the University”. The reporter said even with the top ten percentage plan and President Faulkner said even with it.

One of the most ironic things said in the interview by Senator Jeff Wentworth is that he receive letters from affluent white folk who children can not compete with the other affluent students thus these white folk are trying to transfer their students to “inferior” (his word, not mine) schools so that they can be in the top ten percentile and get a guaranteed seat. What we have here is a plan that was supported in lieu of Affirmative Action and now it appears to be working better than Affirmative Action thus white folk want things back to how they use to be, even with empirical evidence that white students benefit from the top ten Percent Plan more than Black and Latino. It all comes down to some white folk believing they are more deserving of an education that Black and Latino students.

14 Comments:

At 5:40 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Freakin' idiotics!

Did anyone ever tell them to do the math?
Did they even think to do the Ten Percent math?

This is just in keeping with the Indian Giving nature of the whole AA thing. Evidence that White people don't know what the hell they want because as soon as the reality and consequence of what they asked for is in plain "happening like this" sight then they want to change their tune as if they had absolutely no foresight into what... what they vehemently pushed for would entail.

I for one was quick to understand that this would happen. It's simple freakin' math. Somebody should have told them dumbarses that Ten Percent of ALL schools - predominantly Black, White, etc. - would by default increase the numbers because it would draw from a bigger pool of students and automatically grant them a college education regardless of their comparative academic "merit" - i.e. one schools coursework isn't the functional equivalent of another one, meaning the granting of a 10% QUOTA across the board would let more students in who seemingly wouldn't measure up in the past. And we know the whole point isn't the "measuring up". It's the number of Blacks who are able to get a college education they were always concerned about and figured 10% would be a cap that would limit the total aggregate number.

Dummies!!

Now they realize it actually allows more Blacks to be educated (than before). Now, all of a sudden they want to change it. As you detail, all of this goes to challenge and contradict the White Supremacy Myths Whites have. Like the dumb reporter couldn't believe that the 10% Plan didn't "Dumb Down" the university. Quite to the contrary... and now the White Supremacy mindset is demonstrably shattered!

Highest SAT's in history!
Highest freshmen retention in history!
Highest class rank in history!!
>>> Racist White Supremacy Egos and stereotypes shattered! And they didn't see it coming...

"Colorblind" and BLIND-SIDED! lol

See it's an important point you make about all the extents to which Whites would go to get their "competitive" advantage and want to keep it for themselves. Dummies even go to the extent to pay for the advantage when straight White Privilege won't guarantee it to them for free (and their relative wealth to be able to afford paying is a White Privilege in and of itself).

This is tantamount to the Voucher campaign. Upon the push for desegregation, (racist) Whites were willing to "pay" for SEPARATE - in to continue to ensure it would not be EQUAL, either in terms of them getting equally inferior education Blacks were getting or Blacks getting equally materially superior education they were getting. So, once that racket was busted up and the bills from all the "hate" inspired aversions come due and keep adding up without the clear indication that they can and will preserve their same relative superiority then Whites come up with ways to get the gov't through Vouchers to pay for the skewed superiority laden advantage they feel they must automatically have over and above the masses of Black people.

Like the saying goes from the old racist who was just as poor as Black folks, "If I ain't better than a n@gger? Who am I better than?"

White people can try to deny that they don't feel superior to and don't desire to be "superior" to Black people in every meaningful way but their (collective) actions always betray their words.

As it relates to this story... and the historical example, no one told White people to "pay" extra White Privilege. Now, they want to be upset when they have went out of their way for what should have always been free - an equal opportunity to an equal and high quality education. (Constitutional Amendment? Anyone?)

Now their upset because they've paid for a hooker (high quality education) on their own "my first, (almost) only and exclusively" impulse when the ho' would (or should) have given that azz up for free especially if they wanted to share and fulfill that fantasy.

FAHEEM... Tim Wise (I think) introduced/reintroduced me to this quote from James Baldwin which is always so pertinent and hit this one right on the head:


"[White People] are, in effect, still trapped in a history which they do not understand; and until they understand it, they cannot be released from it. They have had to believe for many years, and for innumerable reasons, that black men are inferior to white men. Many of them, indeed, know better, but, as you will discover, people find it very difficult to act on what they know. To act is to be committed, and to be committed is to be in danger. In this case, the danger, in the minds of most white Americans, is the loss of their identity."

The thing about that and the whole White Supremacy mentality of White people is that its all wrapped up in keeping Black people at that "comfortable" relative position of inferiority to them, in status and means. Of course they don't mind if Blacks "improve" themselves, etc. It just becomes problematic in their eyes when Blacks start closing ground on them in real tangible ways. We can take that back to the NY Draft Riots, etc. too much of American history, past and present, bear that out.

And the reality that 100 years or so Black wealth was about .5% of the total U.S. vs. 1% today in the "we've come along way and made a lot of progress" dispensation shows that such "progress" damn sure isn't focused on eradicating White Supremacy. The lost of that status laden identity is what White opposition to Reparations is all about. Pretenses are easily exposed...

 
At 5:42 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Let me also say this:

This is just another example of what I call
WHITE SAVIORS (Buyers) REMOURSE!

Everything looked good in the show room and the impulse of something new that would replace the troubling old made for a snap decision! Ha! Ha! IDIOTS!!

 
At 7:02 PM, Blogger Faheem said...

Nmaginate you made some excellent points. Adding to what has been written; it should be pointed out that those who opposed affirmative action and now those who oppose the top ten percent plan always juxtapose their inability to gain access to a university with Black and Latino gaining admittance into said university. As I stated in my op-ed; instead of them comparing themselves to white students who had GPA’s and SAT scores lower than theirs they always go after the Black and Latino Children and what ever program helped them gain admittance. Why has no white person went after the program that helped those white students with lower GPA’s and SAT scores get into the various colleges and universities? This was true in the Michigan case as well; it was proven that over one thousand white students with lower grades than the plaintiffs in that case was admitted to the school but no one sought to see how those white students were allowed in, they only went after those whom they believe were helped by affirmative action. You ask why? The answer is simple, “White Supremacy”. The white folk that attack affirmative action and programs that help Black and Latino students believe that white students with lower scores than them deserve to be in the school like they do, however those Black and Latino students with lower scores and GPA’s do not. I challenge any reader of this BLOG to prove me wrong!

 
At 8:01 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Thanks for giving me another reason to
vote for George Bush.

Great story, bring on the class war.

See there are better plans that classic affirmative action that aren't racist and unfair and help black people more.

(BTW I am pro-affirmative action but if better class based solution like this could be found I would support them as replacements.)

 
At 8:54 PM, Blogger Faheem said...

Scott is so sick, it oozes out of his body like puss. All he could see in what I wrote were more reasons for him to continue his sick and twisted love affair for Bush, ignoring the reality that white supremacy rule the mind of white folk in their opposition to Affirmative Action. This of course is not surprising being that Scott admit that there is racism that affect Black men and women adversely, however he would rather acquiesce and capitulate to white folk by saying their structural empowerment is something we have to deal with and we should just work twice as hard as them, while simultaneously not attributing our many ills to reactions of racism in America. He would rather say we are the cause of them. Scott is one sick damn Negro.

 
At 9:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.sci.fi/~phinnweb/neuro/8-circuit/winnerloser.html

Basic Winner Scripts

"I make my own coincidences, synchronities, luck, and Destiny."

Basic Loser Scripts

"I can't solve my problems."

----------------------------------------------------
No which one sounds more like your whiny self are represented by your writings on this blog.

 
At 4:05 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Mr./Mrs. Anonymous:

Make sure your pretense and assumptions are accurate and relevant.

Hmmm... Quote something that says categorically that any sentiment, argument or opinion on this BLOG states anything to the point where the author(s) whom you would declare as "whining" has stated that "I or We (as Black people) cannot solve our problems."

That is, a direct statement that by definition either implicitly or explicitly states that the author(s) expressly feels that they/we can't "solve our problems".

To the contrary, you find nothing but the utmost confidence and certitude in that regard especially if you are in any wise referring to something I've said and I know others here whom I'm sure would be subject to your typical, careless, stereotypical, non-thinking labeling have little if any such mentality.

That is, you should KNOW and be able to demonstrate IF YOU ARE NOT WHINING BY PROJECTION how and if your implied accusation of the Basic Loser Script being what's "represented by the writings on this blog" has bearing. Not by your own interpretation. Not by your own inferences. Not by your own equation of what motivates "the writings on this blog" but by the logical conclusions of what is written. Again, not by your own skewed ideas but by an actual, logical assessment of what's presented that apparently you disagree with or find problematic.

It's pretty cheap and maybe its just you (you being cheap and short on logic) to make claims about something someone says when you either can't or won't (for reasons that usually implicate your ability... your lack thereof) specifically illustrate how your claims have any direct bearing by directly attacking a particular argument made that shows how all the assumptions necessary for your claim to be true are, in fact, ones relevant to the statements/arguments/sentiments you want to take exception to.

I said all that to say this.
You're an Intellectual Coward and your statement reeks of your cowardice. You're afraid to directly engage in a debate - hence posting as ANONYMOUS - where you know you can be proven demonstrably WRONG!!

So, sit back like the coward that you are and make non-descript, non-specific (and non-applicable) claims with your non-specified identity. It takes really courage to do that. Huh?

Scared of being shamed?

 
At 6:02 AM, Blogger Scott said...

Basic Winner Scripts / was my post. I guess i wasn't logged in. It usually gives you choice if you are not.

 
At 6:13 AM, Blogger Scott said...

the general tone of this blog is that white supremecy has to be removed. Note there is no plan to remove it beyond talking and hoping white people will change. And that black falures are caused by white supremecy and we don't have to work twice as hard to succeed because that would be unfair to make us work harder.

That is a LOSER script.

That would be like every team saying of course the yankees have to win every year they have the most money so we don't have to compete.

I think your defeatest attitude is WORSE that racism.

And don't tell me that I have blinders on and don't know my history etc. I have written a post on institutal racism on my blog. I get it.
http://blacksforbush.blogspot.com/2004/10/understanding-institutional.html

But the difference between you an me, I that I plan to win and help my people wether or not we have to compete in an uneven playing field.

I refuse to forfit, which seems to be your plan.

 
At 8:22 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

Scott, save your Sad Suckers Soliloquy for someone who gives a f@ck!

While you're doing that, find the balls to actually respond to my post that addressed your curiously anon~ one. I'm not interested in your f@cked up thinking from your f@cked, fallacious, fraudalent and false assumptions and pretenses.

I charged you with making baseless assumptions about what is said here when you tried to imply that the things "written here" represent a LOSER's Script. I pulled your B-tch Card and told you, basically, that you can't substantiate your claims and what did you do... basically COP OUT, prove me right and just went on b-tchin' and never provin' anything about your initial claim.

What's on the table for you to address and substantiate
is your BS claim that the views here have expressed the notion that:

"[WE] can't solve [our] problems..." - individually or collectively.

The simple, solid, sound and conclusive way to do that, especially since you claim to be so well acquainted with the views here, is to find and QUOTE some statement by anyone to whom you claim applies that says just that. It doesn't have to be verbatim. It just has to be logically demonstrated that the views expressed mean just that.

But you and I both know you can't do that.
That's why you hide like a coward behind yet even more claims that you can't substantiate. That's why you have a PRE-SCRIPTED response to me to try to pre-empt some sh-t that you aSSume I will say to you... saying some b!tch-sh!t like:

"And don't tell me that I have blinders on and don't know my history..."

Scott, this is me you're talking to. Unless I have said something to you like that then don't show your stereotyping b-tch-a-tude and aSSume that that would be my response to you. Respond directly to what I said or shut the f@ck up talking to me.

Again, I'm not interested in hearing claims from you. Your Song & Dance around the issues don't impress me. Your illogical intellect doesn't impress me. Your inability to logically defend and substantiate what you say, obviously, doesn't impress me.

So, what the hell value do you think one word of what you have to say and the claims you make about some fathom BS you make up in your head (Straw Man BS!) is suppose to have when you address me with that nonsense?

"But the difference between you an me, I that I plan to win and help my people wether or not we have to compete in an uneven playing field.

I refuse to forfit, which seems to be your plan."

Substantiate that bullllllllllllllsh!t.
Like I tell self-identified White people on-line that say non-following BS like you, making claims about what "seems" to be the case in their slanted, subjective and Face-Saving opinions (not unlike yours).... QUOTE ME OR STROKE ME!!

What?? You still that much of a coward to not make a case based on actual things you've read, things written here?? You're afraid of exposing you're own self as a fraud because you can't substantiate your claims.

Step up to the plate, Scott. You plan to win??
Demonstrate that here and show us how you can defeat this "Loser" and his "Loser's script". C'mon... QUOTE ME!! Not Noah. Not Faheem. You're talking to me right now, Scott.

Find something I said that amounts to what you're claiming. Not by your inferences. Not by your surmise. But by the logical deduction of what I ACTUALLY said and not what you want it to be.
... what you want it to be in order to maintain your happy, tormented mental self-inflicted torture for dare trying to present your illogical ideas as sensible logic and daring still say that your [il]logic can compete with mine or ours. You know when you've been logically defeated. That's why you come back for more and why you make claims you never intend to substantiate.

Keep singing your song Scott.
Your crying, whining - "I plan to win, huh" - "I have to justify my inept plan" song. The one you keep singing even though we've long sinced established that you've been singing Out-Of-Tune!

"That would be like every team saying of course the yankees have to win every year they have the most money so we don't have to compete."

QUOTE ME!!

"I think your defeatest attitude is WORSE that racism."

QUOTE ME... quote a defeatist statement of my.

"I have written a post on institutal racism on my blog. I get it."

Apparently, YOU DON'T!!
Learn how to say things and show that things you admit that you "get" have consequence. Don't tell me some b-tch sh-t about how you get something then you by virtue of your "Plan", etc. illustrate that you don't, won't and can't account for it.

If I say I believe in God, that's suppose to mean something. That's suppose to mean I act and think a certain way in accordance to that belief in order for it to be real and not just LIP SERVICE, ineffectual BS that just come out of my mouth (actually yours in this case) just to make it appear that I'm acknowledging something, an entity of import. You can say stuff all day long... you can make claims forever but your logic and "Plan" must reflect what you claim you are aware of.

You can talk about "institutional racism" all you want but that doesn't mean, and I doubt you post illustrates how you would combat that. That's exactly what your "Plan" has been demonstrated to be sorely LACKING!

And, obviously, your 'understanding' is null or minimal at best if you equate White Supremacy and institutional racism as if they are synonomous/interchangeable in an absolute sense - i.e. one in the same and the sum total of each other; one is not greater than the other or that the latter is not a mere manifestation of the former (the contrapositive being the actual truth).

"black falures are caused by white supremecy"

QUOTE ME and define these vague terms like "failures".
i.e. what's constitute a 'failure' in your mind and where has it been articulated here (by me or others) that **Failure X is caused or due to White Supremacy** and what that means in the given context.

C'mon, Scott...
You pretend to be intelligent. Perhaps you "play an intelligent person on TV" but you have to step up and show how you are making intelligent conclusions BASED on something you actually have seen written here and not things you would like to imagine because you have Scorned Lovers Syndrome and you want revenge because we've showed you how feable you "Plan" is for the claims that you, yourself makes about it.

Don't WHINE BY PROJECTION, Scott. Step up!

"and we don't have to work twice as hard to succeed because that would be unfair to make us work harder."

This shows your sad mentality.
You're saying "WE HAVE TO WORK TWICE AS HARD..." to compete, right Scott? And that's your "Plan"? That's you complete, long term "Plan"?

But you're not self-hating; you're not yielding to White Supremacy... No that's not you. You have a liberated, off-the-plantation mindset for sure, huh Scott?

Scott, answer me this... HOW LONG according to your plan DO WE "HAVE" TO WORK TWICE AS HARD?

To "have" to do something Scott means you have NO (EFFECTIVE) CHOICE in that matter. Now, you tell me who and what has made any other chose like "to be just as good" (which apparently is not good enough and can't be good enough to "compete", hence proving-yielding-resigning to White Supremacy/superiority) non-effectual choices. Your EITHER OR thinking/"PLAN"... either constantly CHOOSE to work twice as hard or "give up" shows your inability to figure out simple things for you having too simple ideas.

"I plan to win and help my people wether or not we have to compete in an uneven playing field."

And I plan to rule the world Scott...
That's about what you statement amounts to - useless chatter couched as a bold proclamation.

It's also, taken in combination with everything else you've said and particularly what your "Plan" has been charged with in terms of great LACKING, nothing but a way to rationalize your impotence when it comes to confronting White Supremacy. It is, clearly, you saying, "I don't really care about White Supremacy (because I have no idea of what to do about it nor do I care to really change it because I'm comfortable with it)!"

Choosing to win and "helping" our people and dismantling White Supremacy are all indispensible of each other Scott.

And I don't use weak as terms like an "unlevel playing field". Talk to me and debate me on my terms - i.e. attack things that I actually say if you want to debate me. But, obviously you don't. COWARD!!

 
At 8:26 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

"I refuse to forfit, which seems to be your plan."
------- SCOTT ----------

QUOTE ME!!
Find, highlight, illustrate and demonstrate what my FORFEITURE CLAUSE was/is.

Don't talk about it... be about it, Scott!
Any cyber-punk can claim that something from someone who challenges their views "seem" a certain way, in order to make their own punk-views seem stronger.

SHOW & PROVE..... what my actual words "seem" like.

 
At 8:28 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

Ultimately one has to ask what the definition of winning is and the moral implication that follows. If winning involves assimilating to the oppressor’s ideology…rather than on the bases of morality I would prefer the loser’s script. The nature of competition is that it produces losers for every winner. Certain peoples have used seesaw economics to lift themselves up as the equal and opposite consequence of putting others down. One can fight against that structural framework or simply play the game as is. If one chooses the latter, then they are simply part and parcel with the oppressors. Back in the days of slavery…if one used your rational Scott, free blacks should have been trying to get into the game and buy some slaves of their own in order that they could be “winners” under the existing framework. Of course, there a rare few blacks back then who did exactly that…..Scott….are you a descendant of on of those Negroes?

 
At 9:06 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

SCOTT...

You Blog-post on your site, citing derivative info. from a source I listed here for you to Get A Clue with doesn't show that you "get it". You saying that "only reparations will close the wealth gap" doesn't show that you "get it".

I already told, in essence, how your grasp for what is White Supremacy is still lacking because you seemed to think "institutional racism" was completely interchangeable. Obviously, you don't have a clue. ANd that's the type of Negro you are.

A No Clue Having, Seeking An Idea and Identity, Can't Figure Sh-t out type of Negro. But yet you think you have a plan.

Tell me this what "form" of Reparations do you deem the "right form" and what will it do in efforts to dismantle White Supremacy - effectively, functionally, permanently?

Reparations and the closing the wealth gap does not dismantle/end/eradicate White Supremacy.

Come back for another lesson, Scott.
I won't charge you for all the teaching I have to do to get you up to speed. I must like you or something...

Anyway... You have not shown that you have the faintest concept of what the "right form" of Reparations was/is. I actually looked at your Blog when you posted something citing the White author who wrote on the subject in the 70's (can't remember his name... how to spell it actually... I think it was written in 1972). Referencing his opinions as you did and as I recall (and I believe I commented on that BS here) your view of what the "proper form" is poor and of little or no effect, ultimately, in terms of dismantling White Supremacy (completely).

Part of the structural/systematic/institutional racism is what's commonly understood as the paradox of Black Consumer Power. We have plenty of money that we spend but those dollars hardly get recycled. That's largely structural/institutional because we spend our money with/in "White People" and their businesses. Now, reparations could begin to address that but not at all initially and hardly entirely in any effective sense.

MORE LESSONS TO COME....

(Explain to me how money via reparations going solely to individuals with the aforemention dynamics as they are is going to effectively and functionally change how America does "race business"?)

 
At 9:06 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...

SCOTT...

You Blog-post on your site, citing derivative info. from a source I listed here for you to Get A Clue with doesn't show that you "get it". You saying that "only reparations will close the wealth gap" doesn't show that you "get it".

I already told, in essence, how your grasp for what is White Supremacy is still lacking because you seemed to think "institutional racism" was completely interchangeable. Obviously, you don't have a clue. ANd that's the type of Negro you are.

A No Clue Having, Seeking An Idea and Identity, Can't Figure Sh-t out type of Negro. But yet you think you have a plan.

Tell me this what "form" of Reparations do you deem the "right form" and what will it do in efforts to dismantle White Supremacy - effectively, functionally, permanently?

Reparations and the closing the wealth gap does not dismantle/end/eradicate White Supremacy.

Come back for another lesson, Scott.
I won't charge you for all the teaching I have to do to get you up to speed. I must like you or something...

Anyway... You have not shown that you have the faintest concept of what the "right form" of Reparations was/is. I actually looked at your Blog when you posted something citing the White author who wrote on the subject in the 70's (can't remember his name... how to spell it actually... I think it was written in 1972). Referencing his opinions as you did and as I recall (and I believe I commented on that BS here) your view of what the "proper form" is poor and of little or no effect, ultimately, in terms of dismantling White Supremacy (completely).

Part of the structural/systematic/institutional racism is what's commonly understood as the paradox of Black Consumer Power. We have plenty of money that we spend but those dollars hardly get recycled. That's largely structural/institutional because we spend our money with/in "White People" and their businesses. Now, reparations could begin to address that but not at all initially and hardly entirely in any effective sense.

MORE LESSONS TO COME....

(Explain to me how money via reparations going solely to individuals with the aforemention dynamics as they are is going to effectively and functionally change how America does "race business"?)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Black Sites and Forums