Structural Racism and Discrimination in America

[deleted]

14 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

THAT FLAW WAS RACISM DUMBASS.

You are what you are. We've accepted it. You're one of the baddies. Just own it. 

My policies are not authoritarianism. But since you mentioned it, global capitalism lets millions of people die every year from disease, hunger, lack of clean water, pollution, lack of housing, because fixing those problems is not profitable. Thats not including any wars over resources. 

And he bungled covid and refused to concede an election he lost.

these companies dont want to drill. there are leases out with nothing being drilled. the oil companies control the supply of oil to maximize profits. 

Personal racism is not institutional racism. 

You're policies are very authoritarian.

You lack understanding.   The world is socialist; this causes the misery.   Leftists can only run their mouth.   The wild success and freedom alloted to people in areas where a slight hint of capitalism exists is not the cause of Leftist Lands miseries.  

The Aquarian saved your miserable life. 

Bitch, where are your solutions?

Companies want to drill where there is oil.   Dumby. 

[Herodotus]

4 minutes ago, FanBack said:

Personal racism is not institutional racism. 

You're policies are very authoritarian.

You lack understanding.   The world is socialist; this causes the misery.   Leftists can only run their mouth.   The wild success and freedom alloted to people in areas where a slight hint of capitalism exists is not the cause of Leftist Lands miseries.  

The Aquarian saved your miserable life. 

Bitch, where are your solutions?

Companies want to drill where there is oil.   Dumby. 

A black man who bores holes in me with his eyes because of my skin color is a racist.  However, he has never benefited from his racism and is in fact reacting against the institutionalized racism that has historically empowered people like me and caused great harm against people like him.  I don't know how you can deny the existence of institutionalized racism.

[deleted]

36 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

A black man who bores holes in me with his eyes because of my skin color is a racist.  However, he has never benefited from his racism and is in fact reacting against the institutionalized racism that has historically empowered people like me and caused great harm against people like him.  I don't know how you can deny the existence of institutionalized racism.

Seriously, we're talking about awareness.   Awareness.   Or more accurately, awokeness. 

The governmental structure of our constitution is not racist - save for the 3/5th clause which was a horrible, dehumanizing compromise; but that clause prevented the southern states ability  to count complete representation from those who had no voice.

What's the solution? 

Individually being better people? 

Or bowing down to a God- Government that will issue a bunch of Authoritarian Laws to make us less racist.  Hint:  that won't work.  

Capitalism and industrialization ended widespread slavery.  Capitalism is a brilliant anti- bigotry force in the philosophical sense. 

[f8ta1ity54]

53 minutes ago, FanBack said:

Personal racism is not institutional racism. 

When you create a system of government that doesn't allow non whites to vote it's not personal racism anymore, its institutional racism. 

53 minutes ago, FanBack said:

You're policies are very authoritarian.

which one?

53 minutes ago, FanBack said:

You lack understanding.   The world is socialist; this causes the misery.   Leftists can only run their mouth.   The wild success and freedom alloted to people in areas where a slight hint of capitalism exists is not the cause of Leftist Lands miseries.  

Word salad. You didnt refute the point, which is that currently under capitalism, millions of people die every year that don't have to. Thats your system.

53 minutes ago, FanBack said:

The Aquarian saved your miserable life. 

Bitch, where are your solutions?

Companies want to drill where there is oil.   Dumby. 

LOL

the solution is let the American people benefit from the oil their country produces and needs to survive, instead of a handful of people holding the country hostage while they rake in billions. 

They already have the lease dumbass. why aren't they drilling? oh, because les soil means they can charge more. 

[RichJ]

5 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

When you create a system of government that doesn't allow non whites to vote it's not personal racism anymore, its institutional racism. 

 

Which government DOES NOT ALLOW , non white to vote. SHOW ME .

[f8ta1ity54]

5 minutes ago, RichJ said:

Which government DOES NOT ALLOW , non white to vote. SHOW ME .

We were talking about the founding fathers when they originally established the constitution. He claimed it was not built on racism, I just proved it was. Keep up or keep moving. 

[f8ta1ity54]

I'm sure its just a coincidence that states that ban felons or make them jump through hoops to get their voting rights back also have some of the highest populations of black people. 

that's not an explicitly racist law, but the law has a racial outcome since it is disproportionately affecting POC.

But POC commit more crimes!

OK, but they are also relegated to the poorest areas in the country. why is that? Did historical and current red lining play into that scenario? hmmm..

there are so many unanswered questions in this country if it isnt racist. Like, why does this shit always happen to POC? 

Its not because you believe they are naturally inferior to whites, right?

[Herodotus]

43 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

I'm sure its just a coincidence that states that ban felons or make them jump through hoops to get their voting rights back also have some of the highest populations of black people. 

that's not an explicitly racist law, but the law has a racial outcome since it is disproportionately affecting POC.

But POC commit more crimes!

OK, but they are also relegated to the poorest areas in the country. why is that? Did historical and current red lining play into that scenario? hmmm..

there are so many unanswered questions in this country if it isnt racist. Like, why does this shit always happen to POC? 

Its not because you believe they are naturally inferior to whites, right?

Well, lower income areas due to property taxes have schools with less funding.  Schools with less funding (Lincoln Prep is an exception that proves the rule)produce kids who do not have the education to go to college or a trade school and land a job.  This makes a poor population.  So born poor, schooled poor, stay poor.  Poverty breeds despair and despair breeds crime especially when despair is centralized.

Throw in the loophole in the 13th Amendment that has been exploited since reconstruction and you see that the PIC (the prison industrial complex) is exploitative mainly based on race and you see why law enforcement may have a reason to arrest blacks for crimes whites walk for.  Also, remember in our legal system money talks see OJ.  If he lives in Compton he might not even make the police station, but he lived in Brentwood so guess what. . . .

Now lets talk about hiring, there are still studies out there that show James Jones is far more likely to land a job than Jamaal Jones and Mary Parsons is a lot more likely to land a job than Marquita Parsons even if Jamaal and Marquita happen to be more qualified.  

Now lets talk about elections, we are one of the few post industrial nations where ex cons cannot vote.  Not lifers or people on the run but ex cons who have repaid their debt, done their time, and made whole again the social contract.  Fuckin ex con! Has it comin! You say, well suppose his name is Tyrone Calvin Williams and his state participates in crosscheck and he can't vote because Tyrone Christopher Williams in the next state got arrested for writing hot checks.  Now lets talk about voter ids and number of polling places.  Look, I am all for requiring voter ids even though the percentage of voter voter fraud in elections since 1982 (two months after I was conceived) to the present is a statistical zero.  However, voter ids can cost money.  To get an ID you need a birth certificate (can be up to 50 bucks) and the id can cost up to 20.  That is, whether you agree or not, is a poll tax.  Poll taxes are illegal as they traditionally were used to disenfranchise blacks. We can also talk about the shortages of polling places in mostly minority areas. We can also discuss gerrymandering.

People really want to deny reality on this?

[RichJ]

1 hour ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

We were talking about the founding fathers when they originally established the constitution. He claimed it was not built on racism, I just proved it was. Keep up or keep moving. 

Our past does not make us who we are today. It does not define us. We have since evolved into one of the first  nation that fought to abolish slavery. Yet people like you still think because of what our founding fathers did which was a universly accpted back then makes America racist. 

Racism lives because you keep talking about it as if it is who we are. 

 

[f8ta1ity54]

Just now, RichJ said:

Our past does not make us who we are today. It does not define us.

So why are there so many proud southerners displaying their confederate flags? Why are they so mad when they have to take those flags down from government buildings? Why are they mad when they have to take down statues of confederate generals, or take the names of confederate generals off of government buildings? 

Just now, RichJ said:

We have since evolved into one of the first  nation that fought to abolish slavery.

Ah, Okay, so now you're moving off the point that the US was built on racism? You concede that now?

Just now, RichJ said:

Yet people like you still think because of what our founding fathers did which was a universly accpted back then makes America racist. 

No, I've listed the many ways in which systemic racism still exists. You just deny that its racism. You think its just "normal". that's why its called systemic racism.

Just now, RichJ said:

Racism lives because you keep talking about it as if it is who we are. 

Its about the 30-40% of Americans who are racist.

[RichJ]

10 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

So why are there so many proud southerners displaying their confederate flags? Why are they so mad when they have to take those flags down from government buildings? Why are they mad when they have to take down statues of confederate generals, or take the names of confederate generals off of government buildings? 

Ah, Okay, so now you're moving off the point that the US was built on racism? You concede that now?

No, I've listed the many ways in which systemic racism still exists. You just deny that its racism. You think its just "normal". that's why its called systemic racism.

Its about the 30-40% of Americans who are racist.

 

a few people does not make it majority. 

There are racist blacks , asians and latinos . Does that make them all racist?

It wasnt built on racism. They didnt bring black slaves here because they were black. Slavery was universal. They would have brought in white slaves if they were available. 

No you have not. Voter ID is not racist. 

Where did you get you data from? Youre telling me there's 130M racists in America? Prove it.

 never denied reacism exists. You put one of them in the white house. 

 

[f8ta1ity54]

Just now, RichJ said:

a few people does not make it majority. 

LOL what are you even arguing about anymore? JUST ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.

 

Just now, RichJ said:

There are racist blacks , asians and latinos . Does that make them all racist?

Nope. did I say all whites were racist?

Just now, RichJ said:

It wasnt built on racism. They didnt bring black slaves here because they were black. Slavery was universal. They would have brought in white slaves if they were available. 

No. tribal slavery is different from chattel slavery. Do you know the difference? 

Just now, RichJ said:

No you have not. Voter ID is not racist. 

Does it or does it not have a racial outcome if it disproportionately affects one race? 

I say yes.

You say no, based on?

Just now, RichJ said:

Where did you get you data from? I never denied reacism exists. You put one of them in the white house. 

Its the size of the GOP voter base. 

It was the lesser of two evils. Good old harm reduction. 

[RichJ]

21 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

LOL what are you even arguing about anymore? JUST ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.

 

Nope. did I say all whites were racist?

No. tribal slavery is different from chattel slavery. Do you know the difference? 

Does it or does it not have a racial outcome if it disproportionately affects one race? 

I say yes.

You say no, based on?

Its the size of the GOP voter base. 

It was the lesser of two evils. Good old harm reduction. 

get educated . Blacks enslaved backs. Did that make them racist? NO! 

 

[f8ta1ity54]

Just now, RichJ said:

get educated . Blacks enslaved backs. Did that make them racist? NO! 

 

About how many blacks owned slaves and how many did they own? For what reasons did they own them? Was the amount of white and black slave ownership proportional in terms of number of slave owners and number of slaves?

 

[RichJ]

30 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

About how many blacks owned slaves and how many did they own? For what reasons did they own them? Was the amount of white and black slave ownership proportional in terms of number of slave owners and number of slaves?

 

why does that matter ?  Moving the goal posts again? 

Proportion has nothing to do with it. They would have taken asian or white slaves if they were available . Aisans took in asian slaves . White took in white slaves . Slavery was not due to the color of yor skin but an economic thing. 

here, more education  for you.

 

[deleted]

3 hours ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

When you create a system of government that doesn't allow non whites to vote it's not personal racism anymore, its institutional racism. 

which one?

Word salad. You didnt refute the point, which is that currently under capitalism, millions of people die every year that don't have to. Thats your system.

LOL

the solution is let the American people benefit from the oil their country produces and needs to survive, instead of a handful of people holding the country hostage while they rake in billions. 

They already have the lease dumbass. why aren't they drilling? oh, because les soil means they can charge more. 

The constitution never said non- whites it made the distinction of 'free men' which was a horrible dehumanizing compromise.   The northern colonies were desperate to get  the southern colonies.  What the Fuck I'd Your Point.

No, people are dying under socialism; wherever there is less or no capitalism - deaths are higher and the standard of living is worse.    All of your policies are authoritarian involving overarching regulations.  You want to be the overlord.   I know what you are Fourth Reicher.

You're lying about the leases; the oil companies magically got extra greedy and jacked up prices.  Right.   Release the leases and gas prices will come down.  Stupid:  every politician in congress becomes a millionaire producing nothing and corporations are the problem. 

So, what are your solutions?

That's what I thought.  

[f8ta1ity54]

21 minutes ago, RichJ said:

why does that matter ?  Moving the goal posts again? 

LOL You do this ALLLLL the time. You present data points without context. It's not moving the goal posts, I honestly feel like you dont understand what that term means. I'm simply asking you to expand on your out of context data points. 

21 minutes ago, RichJ said:

Proportion has nothing to do with it. They would have taken asian or white slaves if they were available . Aisans took in asian slaves . White took in white slaves . Slavery was not sue to the color of yor skin but an economic thing. 

 

Well if you would like more information on the topic here you go:

 

"So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.

Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia. So why did these free black people own these slaves?

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That's the good news. 

 But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit."...

"The good news, scholars agree, is that by 1860 the number of free blacks owning slaves had markedly decreased from 1830. In fact, Loren Schweninger concludes that by the eve of the Civil War, "the phenomenon of free blacks owning slaves had nearly disappeared" in the Upper South, even if it had not in places such as Louisiana in the Lower South. Nevertheless, it is a very sad aspect of African-American history that slavery sometimes could be a colorblind affair, and that the evil business of owning another human being could manifest itself in both males and females, and in black as well as white."

Did Black People Own Slaves? (theroot.com)

 

So according to historians, a very small % of free blacks owned slaves. Most of them owned family members and loved ones. There were a small % of blacks that did own slaves for profit. They were conforming to the dominant culture of the time. So now that we cleared that all up for you. Why do you believe that a tiny % ownership of slaves by black people is equivalent to the race based chattel slavery of the white capitalists in the US? Why do you feel the need to interject with this talking point anytime someone brings up brings up the history of slavery in the US? How is it relevant to the power structures of the time or even today? Does it hurt your feelings anytime someone brings it up?

 

[RichJ]

48 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

LOL You do this ALLLLL the time. You present data points without context. It's not moving the goal posts, I honestly feel like you dont understand what that term means. I'm simply asking you to expand on your out of context data points. 

Well if you would like more information on the topic here you go:

 

"So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.

Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia. So why did these free black people own these slaves?

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That's the good news. 

 But not all did, and that is the bad news. Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit."...

"The good news, scholars agree, is that by 1860 the number of free blacks owning slaves had markedly decreased from 1830. In fact, Loren Schweninger concludes that by the eve of the Civil War, "the phenomenon of free blacks owning slaves had nearly disappeared" in the Upper South, even if it had not in places such as Louisiana in the Lower South. Nevertheless, it is a very sad aspect of African-American history that slavery sometimes could be a colorblind affair, and that the evil business of owning another human being could manifest itself in both males and females, and in black as well as white."

Did Black People Own Slaves? (theroot.com)

 

So according to historians, a very small % of free blacks owned slaves. Most of them owned family members and loved ones. There were a small % of blacks that did own slaves for profit. They were conforming to the dominant culture of the time. So now that we cleared that all up for you. Why do you believe that a tiny % ownership of slaves by black people is equivalent to the race based chattel slavery of the white capitalists in the US? Why do you feel the need to interject with this talking point anytime someone brings up brings up the history of slavery in the US? How is it relevant to the power structures of the time or even today? Does it hurt your feelings anytime someone brings it up?

 

you said the country was built on racism..... my argument is, slavery was not about race it was economic. You come back with proprotion...

 

 

 

 

The major Atlantic slave-trading nations, in order of trade volume, were Portugal, Britain, Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Several had established outposts on the African coast where they purchased slaves from local African leaders

 

 

 

African slavery

Main article: Slavery in Africa

See also: History of slavery in the Muslim world

Slavery was prevalent in many parts of Africa^[32] for many centuries before the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade. There is evidence that enslaved people from some parts of Africa were exported to states in Africa, Europe, and Asia prior to the European colonization of the Americas.^[33]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

 

 

 

 

Efunroye Tinubu - was a powerful Yoruba female aristocrat, merchant, and slave trader in pre-colonial and colonial Nigeria

She sold slaves to Brazilian and European merchants in violation of a 1852 treaty with Great Britain outlawing the slave trade in Lagos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efunroye_Tinubu

 

So when whites own slaves , it's RACISM. When blacks own slaves adn sell them ...what is it?

 

[f8ta1ity54]

10 minutes ago, RichJ said:

you said the country was built on racism..... my argument is, slavery was not about race it was economic. You come back with proprotion...

Serious question, what evidence would you need to change your mind that slavery was about RACE AND ECONOMICS?

10 minutes ago, RichJ said:

So when whites own slaves , it's RACISM. When blacks own slaves adn sell them ...what is it?

 

Again, tribal slavery is different than chattel slavery. What do the Nigerians have to do with the power structures in the US?

[RichJ]

 

7 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Serious question, what evidence would you need to change your mind that slavery was about RACE AND ECONOMICS?

 

I have my evidence. Asians owned Asian slaves and white owned white slaves etc. etc. . FACTS!

Native indians owned black slaves too. Those racist Natives /sarcasm.

7 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

 

Again, tribal slavery is different than chattel slavery. What do the Nigerians have to do with the power structures in the US?

meh, semantics BS.  Owning and trading slaves are the same thing. Spare me your BS- 

[f8ta1ity54]

2 hours ago, RichJ said:

 

I have my evidence. Asians owned Asian slaves and white owned white slaves etc. etc. . FACTS!

Native indians owned black slaves too. Those racist Natives /sarcasm.

meh, semantics BS.  Owning and trading slaves are the same thing. Spare me your BS- 

Apparently you are too dumb to understand what I'm asking you.

I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be any dumber than Philly, but you've proven me wrong.

[HipKat]

On 9/28/2022 at 10:33 AM, Greg said:

You know who else said that? Archie Bunker, George Jefferson and Fred Sanford

[ICRockets2]

7 hours ago, Herodotus said:

Well, lower income areas due to property taxes have schools with less funding.  Schools with less funding (Lincoln Prep is an exception that proves the rule)produce kids who do not have the education to go to college or a trade school and land a job.  This makes a poor population.  So born poor, schooled poor, stay poor.  Poverty breeds despair and despair breeds crime especially when despair is centralized.

Throw in the loophole in the 13th Amendment that has been exploited since reconstruction and you see that the PIC (the prison industrial complex) is exploitative mainly based on race and you see why law enforcement may have a reason to arrest blacks for crimes whites walk for.  Also, remember in our legal system money talks see OJ.  If he lives in Compton he might not even make the police station, but he lived in Brentwood so guess what. . . .

Now lets talk about hiring, there are still studies out there that show James Jones is far more likely to land a job than Jamaal Jones and Mary Parsons is a lot more likely to land a job than Marquita Parsons even if Jamaal and Marquita happen to be more qualified.  

Now lets talk about elections, we are one of the few post industrial nations where ex cons cannot vote.  Not lifers or people on the run but ex cons who have repaid their debt, done their time, and made whole again the social contract.  Fuckin ex con! Has it comin! You say, well suppose his name is Tyrone Calvin Williams and his state participates in crosscheck and he can't vote because Tyrone Christopher Williams in the next state got arrested for writing hot checks.  Now lets talk about voter ids and number of polling places.  Look, I am all for requiring voter ids even though the percentage of voter voter fraud in elections since 1982 (two months after I was conceived) to the present is a statistical zero.  However, voter ids can cost money.  To get an ID you need a birth certificate (can be up to 50 bucks) and the id can cost up to 20.  That is, whether you agree or not, is a poll tax.  Poll taxes are illegal as they traditionally were used to disenfranchise blacks. We can also talk about the shortages of polling places in mostly minority areas. We can also discuss gerrymandering.

People really want to deny reality on this?

And don't forget how the "blacks commit more crime" trend started.  Post-WW2, you saw a lot of movement from cities to suburbs, but thanks to redlining and legal employment discrimination it was rare for anyone but white people to be able to afford that move.  As suburbs grew, businesses also moved into suburban areas, reducing the amount of jobs even available to city-dwellers.  Because of structural racism, there were even areas where you needed cars to be able to commute from cities to suburbs for your job because bridges were built to deliberately prevent buses from being able to use them.  Guess who needed public transportation the most?  Yeah, poor people who couldn't afford an automobile.  

So we have cities full of black and Hispanic people now.  They have drastically reduced economic opportunity in the city, and with red-lining still a universal practice they can't get loans to relieve the pressure.  Enter: the drug war.  We know for a fact that the government flooded these areas with drugs.  Selling them became a lucrative opportunity that would often out-earn a lot of the legal job opportunities these people had.  If you have a family that needs to either eat or die, pay the energy bill or die, pay the rent or die and your best chance of making that happen is slinging dope you're gonna sling fuckin dope.   

[Herodotus]

19 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

And don't forget how the "blacks commit more crime" trend started.  Post-WW2, you saw a lot of movement from cities to suburbs, but thanks to redlining and legal employment discrimination it was rare for anyone but white people to be able to afford that move.  As suburbs grew, businesses also moved into suburban areas, reducing the amount of jobs even available to city-dwellers.  Because of structural racism, there were even areas where you needed cars to be able to commute from cities to suburbs for your job because bridges were built to deliberately prevent buses from being able to use them.  Guess who needed public transportation the most?  Yeah, poor people who couldn't afford an automobile.  

So we have cities full of black and Hispanic people now.  They have drastically reduced economic opportunity in the city, and with red-lining still a universal practice they can't get loans to relieve the pressure.  Enter: the drug war.  We know for a fact that the government flooded these areas with drugs.  Selling them became a lucrative opportunity that would often out-earn a lot of the legal job opportunities these people had.  If you have a family that needs to either eat or die, pay the energy bill or die, pay the rent or die and your best chance of making that happen is slinging dope you're gonna sling fuckin dope.   

Is this why a large part of Buffalo that is mostly minority only had one grocery store? That's a rhetorical question, Kansas City, MO is very much quite sadly the same way.

[ICRockets2]

Just now, Herodotus said:

Is this why a large part of Buffalo that is mostly minority only had one grocery store? That's a rhetorical question, Kansas City, MO is very much quite sadly the same way.

Yep that's a huge factor in how food deserts were created