Jump to content

Woodrow Wilson and racism


Recommended Posts

Why has the left not targeted schools and other government buildings with his name on it? The answer is simple. It i s ok if you are a rabid racist if you agree with the left. So you are given a pass when you were on of the most racist presidents as Woodrow Wilson was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between mere racists and slaveholders.

Wilson did not put his life on the line to defend slavery. I really doubt that Wilson was the "most racist president". There is no racism scale that would allow us to compare  the racism  of  Hayes with the racism of Arthur, for example. I think it would be safe to say that all the presidents before Eisenhower considered Whites  superior to Blacks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

He fought bravely in the Mexican American War. Just look him up on Wikipedia. He was a capable soldier and a [passable college president after the War.

Definitely no accomplishments to warrant any statues other than maybe in his home town. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee was a significant figure in American history, Personally, I have no problem with a statue if him in a park.

But I don't have any problem with moving his statue to the state historical museum, either.

I have ancestors that fought on both sides, as well as some that "lit out for the territories", as Mark Twain did.

If I found myself eighteen years old anywhere in the US in 1960, I would have spent the next five years in Idaho Territory or California or Oregon. It would not have affected the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Scout said:

I too find a big difference between working to make slaves continue to be slaves vs. (merely) being a racist. 

 

Then you should have no problem accepting the statement that modern day DemocRATS are racist because they certain want to make us all slaves and keep us slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Then you should have no problem accepting the statement that modern day DemocRATS are racist because they certain want to make us all slaves and keep us slaves.

They certainly do not. You are such a dolt I have exiled you to the Isles of Iggy. And you still deserve it, I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

Wonder if they accept dollar bills in the collection plate?

 

Well they shouldn't get any, that's for sure.

 

They shouldn't get any 5 dollar bills either.

 

Because that has the face of Lincoln on it and in 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people.

 

Maybe they'll only accept 10 dollar contributions from now on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Then you should have no problem accepting the statement that modern day DemocRATS are racist because they certainly want to make us all slaves and keep us slaves.

I think all people, white or black, yellow or red, etc. are racist.  But only a few act out on it in a fashion that harms others.  Modern day Dems do NOT act out to harm ethnic groups, much less your silly "keep us slaves" bit.   You can't say that of Repubs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

You are such a dolt I have exiled you to the Isles of Iggy.

 

Good luck with that XO.   I'm going to have even more fun with you I guess.   Seems that almost every Democrat on LF is now putting every conservative on ignore around here just because we express fact based opinions they don't like.    And then I guess they think they'll be able to hold a conversation without conservatives.  LOL!   I thought that was what the Snowflake Room (LOR) is for?   But in any case, the only thing they'll accomplish is to look even more like silly, gullible, lying snowflakes.    Yes, it's going to be fun around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scout said:

Modern day Dems do NOT act out to harm ethnic groups

 

I disagree.   The WOP started by DemocRATS has done nothing but hurt blacks.   Democrats have done nothing but encourage blacks to be victims.   DemocRATS want them dependent on government and that is NOT in their real interest.   And now DemocRATS are trying to do the same thing to Hispanics.     It won't end will if the Hispanics let them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

I disagree.   The WOP started by DemocRATS has done nothing but hurt blacks.   Democrats have done nothing but encourage blacks to be victims.   DemocRATS want them dependent on government and that is NOT in their real interest.   And now DemocRATS are trying to do the same thing to Hispanics.     It won't end will if the Hispanics let them.

 

I think the VAST majorities of eligible blacks and Hispanics work very hard on behalf of their families, communities, and God.  As a Dem, when I look at Hispanics and Blacks, I obviously do not see the same thing you see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XavierOnassis said:

There is a difference between mere racists and slaveholders.

Wilson did not put his life on the line to defend slavery. I really doubt that Wilson was the "most racist president". There is no racism scale that would allow us to compare  the racism  of  Hayes with the racism of Arthur, for example. I think it would be safe to say that all the presidents before Eisenhower considered Whites  superior to Blacks. 

 

Academic Communist malcontent strikes again!

 

lbj-racist2.jpeg

 

Ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XavierOnassis said:

There is a difference between mere racists and slaveholders.

Wilson did not put his life on the line to defend slavery. I really doubt that Wilson was the "most racist president". There is no racism scale that would allow us to compare  the racism  of  Hayes with the racism of Arthur, for example. I think it would be safe to say that all the presidents before Eisenhower considered Whites  superior to Blacks. 

Do you really not know what he did as president? LOL! He wasn't just a "mere" racist. He is given a pass by you liberals because he is on your side of the political isle. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/wilson-legacy-racism/417549/

 

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/fedblog/2015/11/when-woodrow-wilson-segregated-federal-workforce/123913/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Scout said:

I think the VAST majorities of eligible blacks and Hispanics work very hard on behalf of their families, communities, and God.

 

That's just a strawman, LIAR.   I never said the vast majority don't work hard on behalf of families, communities, and God?   

 

I do think it's ironic you mention God since the vast majority of leftists on this forum clearly don't believe in God.  

 

And it's ironic that you mention families, since liberal policies have wrecked the family structure of the US (more on that in a moment).

 

But first, my point stands ... the leftist inspired War On Poverty (WOP) hasn't done a thing to actually help the situation of blacks ... it's arguably only made it worse.  

 

Poverty rates haven't gone done from what they were in the 60s.  

 

Do you know that before the Democrats so-called WOP began, blacks were making substantial economic progress?    The poverty rate among black families was plummeting.   It fell from 87% in 1940 to 47% in 1960 ( http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/poverty/3864-War-Poverty-Revisited.html ).  Blacks were showing they were equipped to live AND SUCCEED in this country without the WOP.   Then the misguided Democrat WOP halted that progress and began to worsen the situation. 

 

Prior to LBJ's War On Poverty more than half of blacks had already entered the middle class.   But after the WOP began, what happened? Well, contrary to the public perception (the meme) that youDemocrats and the mainstream liberal media have fostered, that percentage has declined. According to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/economics/analysis.html , in 1970, that percentage had dropped to 56%. By 1994, it had only declined to less than 47% … despite the government spending literally trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars on welfare programs that largely targeted the black community.  However, shockingly, this 2007 article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/13/ST2007111300084.html ) indicates that  
 

Quote

forty-five percent of black children whose parents were solidly middle class in 1968 -- a stratum with a median income of $55,600 in inflation-adjusted dollars -- grew up to be among the lowest fifth of the nation's earners, with a median family income of $23,100

 

despite over 10 trillion dollars being funneled into welfare related programs by that time.  Ten TRILLION dollars (back then).  Now were over 25 TRILLION and the black situation continues to worsen.  And it's not conservatives who are responsible for that.     Seriously, it’s well past time that you Democrats realized that your policies of throwing money at black (and white) poverty and education are not the answer ... that it's made things worse.

 

There are two black income groups that did see growth between 1970 and 1994. Blacks making between $50,000 and $75,000, and blacks making more than $75,000.  I'm willing to bet most of them  (except those in government) achieved that through a good education and by embracing the capitalist, rather than the socialist system that you Democrats promote. Most of them achieved that because of the new opportunities that resulted from the Civil Rights Law (which was pushed through by Republicans) … not welfare (which was pushed through by Democrats). They did it by not being victicrats dependent on the government … although part of that increase could reflect more blacks working for the government and that's effectively just another form of dependency, too.

 

Here’s a census report from 1963 just before the WOP began: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-043.pdf . It notes that median income for whites grew to $6500 in 1963. For nonwhite families, it grew to $3500 ... so it's up 54% of that of whites, up 2% from just 4 years earlier.  Blacks were clearly making progress. Now here's the important part.   It states that “the proportion of nonwhite families with income below $3000 was 43 percent.”  That means that the proportion of nonwhite families with income ABOVE $3000 was 57%. And that places the income of most nonwhite families in the middle class because the middle class is classically defined as everyone but the poorest 20% and the wealthiest 20%. And if you go to Table B of the 1963 census report above, you find that in 1963 the percent of families earning under $3000 was 19%. In other words, $3000 was right at the dividing line for the lowest quintile. Which means about 57% of black families (MORE THAN HALF) earned more than the lowest quintile.   They were middle class. 

 

Here’s another mainstream source verifying that an income of $3000 was at the lower edge of the middle class range: http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2014/04/24/what-it-means-to-be-middle-class-today . It states that “Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor (BAC - and a big time Democrat who I'm sure you admire), has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500 (BAC - in 2014 dollars).” Well, $3000 in 1963 dollars converted to 2014 dollars ( http://www.in2013dollars.com/1963-dollars-to-2014-dollars ) is worth about $23,000.  And that’s using a inflation rate the last several decades that has been tweaked to lower it from what most people experience in the real world.  In fact, this source ( http://www.shadowstats.com/inflation_calculator ), using a perhaps more realistic inflation rate and an inflation rate the way it used to be defined, puts the value of $3000 in 1963 at … well, let’s just say it’s far more than $25,000, as one can visually see.   

 

And that brings up a final point. The median income in 1960 allowed a single earner to support a family with three kids, purchase a modest home, a late model car and older car, take a vacation (to California) and save some money, too. In short, live a relatively good life. A median income earner today will have difficulty purchasing a home much less saving anything.   So clearly, real world inflation has been higher than the official variety.  So clearly, more than half of blacks were in the middle class back in 1963. And relatively speaking, the middle class in 1963 was probably better off then the middle class is today in terms of buying power. And that includes blacks. The hard cold truth that you will eventually have to accept is that you’ve been deceived by all those Democrats and black shysters ministers who told you things are better for blacks as a result of their $25 Trillion WOP.  And rather than rethink the logic of it, DemocRATS have only doubled down on that enslavement.  And enslavement is what it is, because DemocRATS need blacks to remain poor, uneducated and dependent on the government if 95% of them are to continue voting DemocRAT.

 

 

Now i mentioned the hypocrisy of you mentioning families.   Truth is, liberal policies are mostly the cause of black (and white) family structures breaking down since the 60s. It was liberals who targeted the stigma of illegitimacy and the institution of marriage.  After the WOP began, the black illegitimacy rate exploded.  Here, see for yourself:

 

illegitimacy.jpg


It’s now about 70%. Do you know what it is in the Japanese American community? About ten percent … nearly a third of what it now is even in the white community. That’s because Japanese Americans STILL stigmatize out of wed lock pregnancy, a very conservative notion.

 

Do you know that TODAY 3/4ths of Asian American teenagers live in intact married couple families with both biological parents? Do you know that only 25 percent of black teens still live in such families? The divorce rate for blacks versus Asian Americans is consistently two to three times higher over the duration of marriages:

 

cummulative-percentage-of-ever-married-w

 

 

The marriage gap between whites and blacks has widened over the past 50 years …

 

marriage.png

 

That data comes from PEW who note: "Marriage rates have fallen for all groups since the 1960s, but more sharply for blacks than for whites. In 1960, 74% of white adults were married, as were 61% of black adults... By 2011, the black marriage rate had fallen to 56% that of the white rate: 55% of whites were married, compared with 31% of blacks."

 

Here are some more views of the problem:

 

a7512376-198-US-Marriage-Rate-1968-2008.

 

You can clearly see when this began ... when the Democrat's WOP began.   You DemocRATS have destroyed marriage to enslave people to the State.

 

casselman-feature-marriage-1.png?w=575

 

You can clearly see that until the WOP began, marriage rates were stable.
 
And the group the WOP targeted the most … blacks … is the group that has suffered the most.
 

Economists will tell you that the #1 thing you can do to amass wealth is get married.

 

Yet liberal policies have been intent on destroying the institution.


You can hardly blame this on conservatives.
 
This has happened as a direct result of the left's WOP and the spread of the liberal notions that marriage and religion are passé .
 
That illegitimacy is perfectly ok.
 
That marriage doesn’t matter.
 
That all it takes is a village.
 
Say ... I wonder who said that, Scout?
 
:D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Fallopian said:

He wasn't president. Nice deflection though. LOL

You are the one that brought the monument stuff into the argument.  Republicans:  THEY NEVER take responsibility for their actions. 

 

2 hours ago, Fallopian said:

Why has the left not targeted schools and other government buildings with his name on it? The answer is simple. It i s ok if you are a rabid racist if you agree with the left. So you are given a pass when you were on of the most racist presidents as Woodrow Wilson was. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't I already waste a bunch of time read a Schipper's quote from a book you produced that never did have any of the evidence it claimed and YOU could not come up with it either.

Fuck that. 

 

Get your point across in 100 words or less.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Scout said:

Get your point across in 100 words or less.  

 

Ah ... you can only deal with one-liners.  

 

I get it.  

 

Unfortunately most of life and most evidence can't be summarized by one-liners.  

 

Nor do facts made up by you, like you did your claim about the demographics of US military casualties, make a point.

 

They are just LIES.

 

Speaking of which, those particular lies were a reverse form of racism.

 

Because they were meant to keep blacks feeling victimized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...