There are so many examples of terrorism against islands of black American prosperity, Tulsa isn't an isolated incident, Black folks have been denied a firm footing in society by the same forces that have stacked the supreme court. To wax nostalgic of Jim Crow in 2024 should wake the MSM from it's slumber but it won't.
drumfp is not going to choose donalds because of his name albeit race too. There can only be one donald even with/without s. What a shameless, immoral pos, debasing an entire group of people, that too, to whom he supposedly belongs. Shamelessly sucking upto a racist, allegedly rapist, traitor, misogynist, tutinlover, bankrupt fakebillionaire!
Honestly and truly, what the actual fuck is wrong with republicans? This does explain why they don't want the entire history of our country taught, so people will believe this utter horseshit from Donalds and the rest of that ahistorical batshit party.
When Donalds is talking about black families and "LBJ's H.E.W." he's indirectly citing Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous/infamous white paper, written for the LBJ admin. on "The Negro Family." He's also mangling it. It's true that Moynihan attributed Black poverty to unstable/female headed families - that accounts for its fame and its infamy. But everything else in the paper contradicts Donalds' thesis.
First, HEW was formed in 1953 - the Eisenhower administration - not during LBJ's. Second, Donalds is obliquely referring to the "Welfare" part of HEW, meaning Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which was established in 1935. (The date of its establishment is a clue as to who the primary beneficiaries of AFDC were; White folks, who've always outnumbered Blacks on the "welfare" rolls.) Moynihan does not say "welfare" is a cause of unstable Black families. In Part III of the paper, titled "The Roots of the Problem" the root is
Slavery. (I set this apart just the way Moynihan's paper did, a one word "paragraph" under the chapter heading.)
The first full paragraph states: "The most perplexing question abut American slavery, which has never been altogether explained, and which indeed most Americans hardly know exists, has been stated by Nathan Glazer as follows: 'Why was American slavery the most awful the world has ever known?' The only thing that can be said with certainty is that this is true: it was.'" Moynihan goes on to show a lot of reasons American slavery was the worst that ever existed - much worse, for example, than Brazilian slavery.
Of course, one of the main horrors of enslavement was that the children of enslaved people were also enslaved. Another horror is that Black families were routinely broken up when enslaved spouses and children were sold to different slave-drivers. This, and the astounding lack of human dignity accorded to the enslaved (astounding even compared to slavery in other countries, like Brazil) - an indignity compounded by almost 100 years of segregation - is basically why Moynihan said Black families were unstable.
Today, this is part of what we mean by "systemic racism." For centuries Blacks have lacked the ability to acquire generational wealth, and generate the social capital that Whites can. There's more to systemic racism than this, but to me, anyway, this is the undeniable core of Black inequality today, also known as "the lingering effects of slavery and segregation."
Finally, I note that Moynihan's paper came out in 1965, when LBJ had been president for just over a year, and before any of his Great Society programs, so Moynihan was clearly not blaming LBJ, or even Democratic policies in general, for Black poverty.
Sorry this is so long, but though I'm a White guy, I've been thinking about this longer than Donalds has been alive. (I can even recite conservative claptrap better than Donalds, an unfortunate by-product of caring about the issue.)
An excellent and highly informative post. You demonstrate exactly why the GOP wants to suppress education about slavery and its lasting legacy. It would indeed make white students uncomfortable to hear that and they might be tempted to show empathy to their black counterparts which would never do.
Excellent points. Donalds seems to push this idea that "racism was tough, so was poverty, but at least our family bonds were strong" when there's really no evidence that bonds were stronger then than now. A legacy of slavery breaking up families, then under Jim Crow many being forced to leave home to try and find work (and escape the greater horrors of Jim Crow Mississippi for the lesser but still awful horrors of northern segregation)--these things had a lot to do with family breakdown, but in the right wing narrative the real evil was "government giving people free food".
"he should physically experience, on a deep visceral level, what they did before opening his mouth again" if only...also what is it with these goombas claiming to be taken out of context? What possible context could excuse such ignorance and hatred?
I just have such trouble putting my anger to words right now.
I want to slap the taste out of that stupid quisling's mouth. This fool is a YEAR OLDER than me. His parents were subject to Jim Crow! Does he have ANY older members of his family? Do those people look forward to segregated housing, schools and water fountains (always of lesser quality)
Clearly his parents never had Eyes on the Prize in the family book collection.
I heard about his comments a couple days ago. I don't think it's possible for them to stop. They know they've been caught saying Black people were better off under slavery before, and they've been caught saying this about Jim Crow, too. And yet they keep repeating it. Donalds is even correct to the extent that his particular formulation of this insulting lie is somewhat more limited to the even more insulting and grandiose lies told by his peers, but that shouldn't save him.
We simply have to keep calling them out for this until they day that they die and eventually maybe we'll have a generation where this doesn't happen -- at least not at the level of federal elected officials.
Health, Education, and Welfare. It was sort of a 1960s version of CRT, except somewhat less divorced from reality. HEW exists as successor agencies today (and existed as a cabinet department then) and while rhetoric ascribed impossible bullshit and the modern right tends to ascribe even more, the criticisms of the time were a bit more intelligible to a non-conspiracy theorist.
It's always very sad to see into the mindset of people who, for reasons either venal or self-hating or psychologically messed up, actually decide to advocate against their own best interests and the interests of people like them. It's especially terrible when they aim for a position of power or influence. We have all had encounters with these types.
It's also discouraging to realize that they actually draw strength from opposition and dispute. These are absolutely NOT the people that we should elevate to public office. Anyone running on a platform of twisting reality or denying history must be soundly defeated and their lies must be challenged at every turn. Seems like that should be obvious, but...
He may think his best interest is his own power and money, and the right wing shit that he believes in. Sure, we think he should have a little respect for what black people like himself had to suffer to get to the point where he can enjoy the fruits of a post-1964 world, and some awareness of bigotry that still exists, but he clearly has other priorities.
Isn't Donalds himself a convicted felon (with an expunged record)? Is the GOP really going to wind up with two felons on the ticket?
I guess Donalds is saying that our welfare policies have disincentives for keeping families intact--e.g., a higher payout if there are two earning spouses in the household compared to a single parent--so I guess we should all eagerly anticipate the slate of welfare reforms he is proposing to ensure that families on welfare can still receive adequate assistance without any disincentives towards keeping two spouses in the household. I'm not holding my breath, though....
And it might surprise Donalds to know but most black Americans are not on welfare, and are definitely better off than they were under Jim Crow, and that the end of Jim Crow and the creation of laws that opened up a lot of jobs to black people that they couldn't get before is due to liberals passing such laws, that were opposed by conservative heroes like Reagan and Goldwater (while Nixon was no prize on racial issues as POTUS, he did at least support the civil rights act, unlike his parties dipshit nominee in '64). But I guess Donalds cannot credit liberals for anything, so he has to engage in this absurd fiction that black families were better off in Jim Crow times. You know, when they weren't caught in sundown towns, or accidentally made eye contact with a white person on the sidewalk, or forgot their place and sat in the wrong part of the bus even after coming home from fighting for this country in WWII.
If I had to guess I'd say Burgum ends up on the ticket, although I'm sure they have a certain perverse desire to see Rubio since his presence is unconstitutional which they like because it proves CF Tangeranus is above the law.
Burgum is probably "the least likely to be a drag on the ticket" and doesn't take any attention away from Trump, so he might be the pick on that basis. Rubio and Vance both bad-mouthed Trump in the past, so it's hard to imagine him forgiving that, and both would have to spend the campaign explaining that to the media. Scott has the strength in that he helps Republicans pretend Trump is not a racist ("would a racist ever put a black VP on his ticket?").
He IS. This fucking clown spent much of his life peddling poison in our communities and now he wants to do this softshoe maneuver.
It's an annoying article of faith among Black Republicans that Black folk vote Democratic because Democrats give them "free stuff' and "free welfare" even though that isn't a thing. Like many Americans they're just not curious enough to actually look at data or even understand how programs work. And they don't have to as they're useful agents in the rightwing media human centipede.
The funny thing is not a single black person I know has ever been on welfare or is even related to anyone on welfare, and every person I know who is on some form of welfare or another is white. And considering welfare's "work requirements" (the vast majority of it is salary supplements) it's a stretch to say it's "free stuff" any more than social security or medicare is. But the narrative has to be that Democrats give things away, and as black people overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, it must be for the free stuff, because what else could it be?
I think there are a number of reasons black people do overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, even conservative black people, and this can range from the New Deal (when the first voting shift occurred) and the civil rights era (when the rest of the voting shift occurred). Basically, it comes down to "who gives a shit about me" and "who doesn't hate me". Democrats shouldn't take their votes for granted, but Republicans wondering why they can't win at least half their votes should start with (1) how do our policies help black people who aren't already very rich and (2) why are we so unwilling to kick white supremacists out of our party?
They just don't care. They just exercise their power to play in our faces. That's also why they ally with shitty gangsta rappers who also pump poison into our communities, because that's all they believe Black people can aspire to. Shoes and rap. Shoes and fucking rap.
I saw it. It was disgusting to listen to him.
I suspect that Donalds doesn't believe a word of what he says. This is about unbridled personal ambition. It's disgusting.
This guy is the absolute worst.
Thanks for this, Stephen.
There are so many examples of terrorism against islands of black American prosperity, Tulsa isn't an isolated incident, Black folks have been denied a firm footing in society by the same forces that have stacked the supreme court. To wax nostalgic of Jim Crow in 2024 should wake the MSM from it's slumber but it won't.
Jews were so much closer to each other in the Warsaw ghetto vs spread out all over Poland. It was a true golden age.
You are right of course but I couldn’t bring myself to “love” your post, which is very apt and powerful.
drumfp is not going to choose donalds because of his name albeit race too. There can only be one donald even with/without s. What a shameless, immoral pos, debasing an entire group of people, that too, to whom he supposedly belongs. Shamelessly sucking upto a racist, allegedly rapist, traitor, misogynist, tutinlover, bankrupt fakebillionaire!
Well, he does chose McDonald's often.
Honestly and truly, what the actual fuck is wrong with republicans? This does explain why they don't want the entire history of our country taught, so people will believe this utter horseshit from Donalds and the rest of that ahistorical batshit party.
(that question is rhetorical)
Self loathing is a terrible thing.
And he SHOULD loathe himself, helping to pump poison into our communities, then he wants to turn it around and shit on us "legally" with Republicans.
Actually he loathes himself because he's a conservative. He's been trained to hate the color of his own skin. Hate is taught.
"Hate is taught."
Carefully taught, as the Rogers and Hammerstein lyric goes.
https://rodgersandhammerstein.com/song/south-pacific/youve-got-to-be-carefully-taught/
I am stunned that this was in a musical debuted in 1949...because it's a direct indictment of US racial discrimination,
Wow! I am too. It certainly is damning. Just like Blazing Saddles couldn't be released today because it too was an indictment of racism.
When Donalds is talking about black families and "LBJ's H.E.W." he's indirectly citing Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous/infamous white paper, written for the LBJ admin. on "The Negro Family." He's also mangling it. It's true that Moynihan attributed Black poverty to unstable/female headed families - that accounts for its fame and its infamy. But everything else in the paper contradicts Donalds' thesis.
First, HEW was formed in 1953 - the Eisenhower administration - not during LBJ's. Second, Donalds is obliquely referring to the "Welfare" part of HEW, meaning Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which was established in 1935. (The date of its establishment is a clue as to who the primary beneficiaries of AFDC were; White folks, who've always outnumbered Blacks on the "welfare" rolls.) Moynihan does not say "welfare" is a cause of unstable Black families. In Part III of the paper, titled "The Roots of the Problem" the root is
Slavery. (I set this apart just the way Moynihan's paper did, a one word "paragraph" under the chapter heading.)
The first full paragraph states: "The most perplexing question abut American slavery, which has never been altogether explained, and which indeed most Americans hardly know exists, has been stated by Nathan Glazer as follows: 'Why was American slavery the most awful the world has ever known?' The only thing that can be said with certainty is that this is true: it was.'" Moynihan goes on to show a lot of reasons American slavery was the worst that ever existed - much worse, for example, than Brazilian slavery.
Of course, one of the main horrors of enslavement was that the children of enslaved people were also enslaved. Another horror is that Black families were routinely broken up when enslaved spouses and children were sold to different slave-drivers. This, and the astounding lack of human dignity accorded to the enslaved (astounding even compared to slavery in other countries, like Brazil) - an indignity compounded by almost 100 years of segregation - is basically why Moynihan said Black families were unstable.
Today, this is part of what we mean by "systemic racism." For centuries Blacks have lacked the ability to acquire generational wealth, and generate the social capital that Whites can. There's more to systemic racism than this, but to me, anyway, this is the undeniable core of Black inequality today, also known as "the lingering effects of slavery and segregation."
Finally, I note that Moynihan's paper came out in 1965, when LBJ had been president for just over a year, and before any of his Great Society programs, so Moynihan was clearly not blaming LBJ, or even Democratic policies in general, for Black poverty.
Sorry this is so long, but though I'm a White guy, I've been thinking about this longer than Donalds has been alive. (I can even recite conservative claptrap better than Donalds, an unfortunate by-product of caring about the issue.)
An excellent and highly informative post. You demonstrate exactly why the GOP wants to suppress education about slavery and its lasting legacy. It would indeed make white students uncomfortable to hear that and they might be tempted to show empathy to their black counterparts which would never do.
They use this document like they use MLK's lifetime oratory: distilled down the That ONe Sentence That They Like.
Excellent points. Donalds seems to push this idea that "racism was tough, so was poverty, but at least our family bonds were strong" when there's really no evidence that bonds were stronger then than now. A legacy of slavery breaking up families, then under Jim Crow many being forced to leave home to try and find work (and escape the greater horrors of Jim Crow Mississippi for the lesser but still awful horrors of northern segregation)--these things had a lot to do with family breakdown, but in the right wing narrative the real evil was "government giving people free food".
" the real evil was "government giving people free food"."
Exactly. I am still stunned by the complete lack of self awareness of 'conservatives' like Craig T Nelson, "I've been on welfare, I've been on food stamps. Did anyone help me out? No!" https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/1b0240v/craig_t_nelson_ive_been_on_food_stamps_and/
Thanks so much for this informed response!
Thanks!
Thank you for education.
Thanks for this. It’s sad that apparently the only people who know 20th century American history are those of us who lived through it.
Ain't it the truth.
"he should physically experience, on a deep visceral level, what they did before opening his mouth again" if only...also what is it with these goombas claiming to be taken out of context? What possible context could excuse such ignorance and hatred?
It is deliberate lying.
I just have such trouble putting my anger to words right now.
I want to slap the taste out of that stupid quisling's mouth. This fool is a YEAR OLDER than me. His parents were subject to Jim Crow! Does he have ANY older members of his family? Do those people look forward to segregated housing, schools and water fountains (always of lesser quality)
Clearly his parents never had Eyes on the Prize in the family book collection.
I heard about his comments a couple days ago. I don't think it's possible for them to stop. They know they've been caught saying Black people were better off under slavery before, and they've been caught saying this about Jim Crow, too. And yet they keep repeating it. Donalds is even correct to the extent that his particular formulation of this insulting lie is somewhat more limited to the even more insulting and grandiose lies told by his peers, but that shouldn't save him.
We simply have to keep calling them out for this until they day that they die and eventually maybe we'll have a generation where this doesn't happen -- at least not at the level of federal elected officials.
What is the “HEW” referred to by Donalds?
Health, Education, and Welfare. It was sort of a 1960s version of CRT, except somewhat less divorced from reality. HEW exists as successor agencies today (and existed as a cabinet department then) and while rhetoric ascribed impossible bullshit and the modern right tends to ascribe even more, the criticisms of the time were a bit more intelligible to a non-conspiracy theorist.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In the Carter years it was split into Health and Human Services and Department of Education.
It's always very sad to see into the mindset of people who, for reasons either venal or self-hating or psychologically messed up, actually decide to advocate against their own best interests and the interests of people like them. It's especially terrible when they aim for a position of power or influence. We have all had encounters with these types.
It's also discouraging to realize that they actually draw strength from opposition and dispute. These are absolutely NOT the people that we should elevate to public office. Anyone running on a platform of twisting reality or denying history must be soundly defeated and their lies must be challenged at every turn. Seems like that should be obvious, but...
He may think his best interest is his own power and money, and the right wing shit that he believes in. Sure, we think he should have a little respect for what black people like himself had to suffer to get to the point where he can enjoy the fruits of a post-1964 world, and some awareness of bigotry that still exists, but he clearly has other priorities.
Isn't Donalds himself a convicted felon (with an expunged record)? Is the GOP really going to wind up with two felons on the ticket?
I guess Donalds is saying that our welfare policies have disincentives for keeping families intact--e.g., a higher payout if there are two earning spouses in the household compared to a single parent--so I guess we should all eagerly anticipate the slate of welfare reforms he is proposing to ensure that families on welfare can still receive adequate assistance without any disincentives towards keeping two spouses in the household. I'm not holding my breath, though....
And it might surprise Donalds to know but most black Americans are not on welfare, and are definitely better off than they were under Jim Crow, and that the end of Jim Crow and the creation of laws that opened up a lot of jobs to black people that they couldn't get before is due to liberals passing such laws, that were opposed by conservative heroes like Reagan and Goldwater (while Nixon was no prize on racial issues as POTUS, he did at least support the civil rights act, unlike his parties dipshit nominee in '64). But I guess Donalds cannot credit liberals for anything, so he has to engage in this absurd fiction that black families were better off in Jim Crow times. You know, when they weren't caught in sundown towns, or accidentally made eye contact with a white person on the sidewalk, or forgot their place and sat in the wrong part of the bus even after coming home from fighting for this country in WWII.
If I had to guess I'd say Burgum ends up on the ticket, although I'm sure they have a certain perverse desire to see Rubio since his presence is unconstitutional which they like because it proves CF Tangeranus is above the law.
Burgum is probably "the least likely to be a drag on the ticket" and doesn't take any attention away from Trump, so he might be the pick on that basis. Rubio and Vance both bad-mouthed Trump in the past, so it's hard to imagine him forgiving that, and both would have to spend the campaign explaining that to the media. Scott has the strength in that he helps Republicans pretend Trump is not a racist ("would a racist ever put a black VP on his ticket?").
I agree, Burg Dougum is basically a blank, boring slate like Mike Pence that'll just sit in the background and be a toady.
He IS. This fucking clown spent much of his life peddling poison in our communities and now he wants to do this softshoe maneuver.
It's an annoying article of faith among Black Republicans that Black folk vote Democratic because Democrats give them "free stuff' and "free welfare" even though that isn't a thing. Like many Americans they're just not curious enough to actually look at data or even understand how programs work. And they don't have to as they're useful agents in the rightwing media human centipede.
The funny thing is not a single black person I know has ever been on welfare or is even related to anyone on welfare, and every person I know who is on some form of welfare or another is white. And considering welfare's "work requirements" (the vast majority of it is salary supplements) it's a stretch to say it's "free stuff" any more than social security or medicare is. But the narrative has to be that Democrats give things away, and as black people overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, it must be for the free stuff, because what else could it be?
I think there are a number of reasons black people do overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, even conservative black people, and this can range from the New Deal (when the first voting shift occurred) and the civil rights era (when the rest of the voting shift occurred). Basically, it comes down to "who gives a shit about me" and "who doesn't hate me". Democrats shouldn't take their votes for granted, but Republicans wondering why they can't win at least half their votes should start with (1) how do our policies help black people who aren't already very rich and (2) why are we so unwilling to kick white supremacists out of our party?
They just don't care. They just exercise their power to play in our faces. That's also why they ally with shitty gangsta rappers who also pump poison into our communities, because that's all they believe Black people can aspire to. Shoes and rap. Shoes and fucking rap.