Zip:
Race-based socialism, how progressive.
Via Salon:
Although the Civil Rights Act, the landmark legislation which just reached its 50th anniversary, made great strides in desegregating the economy, economic discrimination is still widespread, and anti-discrimination legislation alone can never rectify the economic damage inflicted upon blacks by slavery and our Jim Crow apartheid regime. The Civil Rights Act was a mild reform, all things considered, but one conservatives fought with vigor and one many conservatives are still bitter about to this day.
When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, the primary purpose was to root out discrimination in public accommodations (like hotels and movie theaters) and in employment. The former purpose–eliminating public accommodations discrimination–has received renewed attention from conservatives lately who find it to be an infringement on the rights of racist business owners to be racist. GOP favorite Rand Paul expressed this view in 2010 and Cato’s Ilya Shapiro expressed it just a few months ago on MSNBC. […]
Great. How much do the Irish get?
@Kraken:
Let’s see; how much do Native Americans get for all that land that others currently live on because that land was taken from the various tribes? How much am I entitled to for the deaths of my ancestors due to the Trail of Tears? How much interest will I earn on land that was taken from other tribes because of the Buffalo soldiers? Can the Native Americans bill the descendants of the Buffalo soldiers who didn’t enslave the Natives, just slaughtered them.
You want to see poverty in America? Visit the Red Bud rez. Makes the ghettos of Chicago look like Trump Towers.
Yes, liberalism is a mental disease.
@retire05:
Were Native Americans enslaved?
Great! Let’s start with you Salon…
@Rich (the conservative one):
Drones never think that the money for the Collective’s redistribution schemes will come out of their own pockets.
If every penny were collected and then all the gov’t didn’t waste on paperpushers was ”redistributed” equally to every person in the USA, one year later the old rich would be getting rich once again.
During that same year the poor would be getting poor again.
Those in the middle might stay the same, get richer or get poorer.
Then what would the redistributionists do?
Rinse and repeat every other year?
The whole process would simply be another way for the government to gain an increasingly large amount of other people’s money.
The gov’t cut would eventually impoverish everyone else.
Just like it did in the new murder capital of the world, Venezuela.
@Nanny G:
It’s not really about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
It’s about the redistributionist skimming a portion of the redistributed wealth for themselves.
It’s about institutionalized theft.
Surely these are old points:
So is an entity going to hold accountable the descendants of negroes who sold other negroes into slavery? How about descendants of Arabs that gained wealth in the slave trade and some of that was done in the manner of a religious hate crime against non Muslims. Is a credit applied for the better life that negroes have in the West compared to what they would have in Africa? Is a credit applied for all the set asides in commerce in this country. Non-minority companies pay “minority” businessmen money to be an extra middle man for components to achieve the required minority involvement thus running up the cost of government projects since all businesses not owned by a “minority” must do this so it is factored in.
I keep hearing what LBJ said about negroes. How can a culture not be sorry and angry at others when they chose to follow LBJ and current merchants of hate?
What redistributionist reparations are owed for Homo Sapiens wiping out Neanderthals? Think that’s absurd? The Spanish is already calling Homo Sapiens an “alien invasive species.” So it’s only a matter of time before the Collective makes this case, especially if they’re ever able to clone Neanderthals back into existence, and use them as political pawns.
The question here then is how can Homo Sapiens Native Americans be both an “alien invasive species” and a native indigenous people all at the same time?
@Kraken:
Yes, they were. Native Americans were the first to be sold into slavery in North America, and shipped out of North America to foreign lands, before Africans kidnapped other tribal Africans and sold them into slavery to European and Arab slavers who shipped them to North America.
@retire05:
This I did not know. I would be interested in learning more if you’d be willing to supply some links.
Great, let’s start with the political class in Washington. They are our leaders, let them lead.
Where’s my check?
@Kraken:
Just Google “Native Americans sold into slavery” and you will come up with lots of articles, book references, etc.
Native Americans not only practiced slavery but were enslaved, especially in the Carolinas.
Screw Salon and the Gimmecrats! My family not only never owned a slave in this country, we have a family burial plot in central Kansas with a dozen of my relatives that paid to end slavery with their lives.
Actually, excuse my language, but anyone that wants more out of me than the $15+trillion already thrown away via the War on Poverty can just Fuck themselves and their little dog, too.
If the redistribution is done equally, The enslaved Irish will and should be first and last on the list.
@Buffalobob:
We already have redistribution policies in the form of public housing, food stamps, Medicaid, Obama phones, free internet service, free cable service. There should be NONE except for those in the most dire situations.
Our Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, not equal income. And as Nan said, there are those poor who will remain poor no matter how much you redistribute to them.