Skip to main content

Racism In America: The Movie "The Help", "12 Years a Slave", and now "The Green Book": Discrimination in America

ME has spent most of his retirement from service to the United States studying, thinking, and writing about the country he served.

the-movie-the-help-sobers-you-up-a-bit-doesnt-it-discrimination-in-america

Another step backwards - https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/ed-dept-texas-tech/index.html - the shackles are being put back on

Are the Race Wars starting all over again as black churches are being attacked?https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/06/us/louisiana-black-church-fires/index.html


Thoughts about "12 Years a Slave" and "The Green Book" are added below the main article.

"THE HELP" Makes You Reflect

I JUST FINISHED WATCHING THE NEW MOVIE "THE HELP", (which was 2 1/2 years ago now that I just got back from see 12 Years a Slave, see below) starring Bryce Dallas Howard and Viola Davis in a 1942 Productions and Dreamworks project based on a novel by the same name written by Katheryn Stockett. For those few who may not be aware, it is about the real life black maids and nannies set in racist Jackson, MS around the period 1960 to 1964; just before the beginning of the civil rights movement. The plot has the daughter of one well-off family gets back from college intent on becoming a journalist. Seeing the plight of the black servants; having been raised by one who, mysteriously is no longer there, being very sympathetic to their dire plight she decides to write about their life as servants; from their perspectives; using their words. This is not an easy chore given the maids reticence to talk for fear of losing their jobs.

As it turns out, in Mississippi at that time, it was illegal for the heroine to attempt to write such a book; that was reality then folks, not storyline! In any case, events happen, such as a servant being fired for using the bathroom inside the master's house (this is 1960, mind you), instead of using ones undies if you couldn't make it to the toilet provided outside the house, in this wonderfully told and presented story (which all should go see by the way) that lead these black women to open up to our heroine. All of these scenes I just alluded to are in the trailers, so I didn't give anything away, lol.

By the time the movie was over, I was thoroughly entertained, very happy I came to see "The Help", and thinking about this Hub; it had me in a very reflective mood about racism in America, what our history has been regarding this pus-filled abscess in our heritage, where we stand now in healing it, and whether it can ever be contained. I am not naïve enough to believe it can be eliminated, humans simply aren't built not to be racist when the cancer of racism is left alone to fester.

WHITES-ONLY DRINKING FOUNTAIN and HANG 'EM HIGH

June 5,, 2014 - Discrimination is Alive And Well in the USA

THIS JUST HIT THE WIRES YESTERDAY, another example to disprove the notion that many Americans, generally of one political persuasion, claim that racism and discrimination doesn't exist anymore in America. This idea is used to argue that minorities, especially Blacks, don't need the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts, both of which have been under assault. Unfortunately, since President Reagan established the Rehnquist Supreme Court and gaining strength with the Roberts Court, those trying to roll back these Acts have found a friendly ear, the same kind of sympathetic ear their kindred spirits found in the 1880s as the laws implementing the 13th through 15th Amendments were vacated; which led to the necessity of the 1964 and 1965 laws to reinstate them.

What you hear on this YouTube video is typical of what I hear all around me here in rural Florida.

SLAVERY, WHETHER BY WHIPS AND CHAINS OR BY SUBTLE DISCRIMINATION ALLOWED BY A NEGLECTFUL PEOPLE ARE BOTH EQUALLY WRONG

the-movie-the-help-sobers-you-up-a-bit-doesnt-it-discrimination-in-america
the-movie-the-help-sobers-you-up-a-bit-doesnt-it-discrimination-in-america

12 DAYS A SLAVE

WHERE THE HELP WAS SET IN THE EARLY 1950s, 12 Years a Slave began with a kidnapping of a free black man in Washington D.C. in 1841 (just short 173 years ago) and sold into slavery in Louisiana. What is ironic, in terms of how they were treated by Southern whites, the black help in the 1950s weren't treated much better than black maids in the households of "good" master's in the 1800s; of course the "bad" masters were another story altogether and in a league of their own.

The storyline of this heartrending movie is based on the memoirs of Solomon Northup, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, a free black in upstate New York. The movie won an Oscar for Best Picture, Lupita Nyong'o won Best Supporting Actress, and John Ridley for Best Adapted Screenplay. Unusual for movies of this type is they stayed very close to historical facts, using actual names, like Edwin Epps, the brutal plantation owner who owned Northup for 10 years, and places.

The story itself was a horrific tale from a very long slice of American history which still lives with us today, just not in such a violent form. It brings once again to the bright light of day the horrors of a recent past that we as a People of closed our eyes and minds and kidding themselves by saying "that was then, this is now". Well, I am here to tell you, looking around my vantage point from the rural South, the whips may be gone and chains long removed, but the "attitude" of Edwin Epps is still here. Because it is no longer legal to assert white supremacy openly, it has just moved underground and found more subtle outlets and use the false argument of "individual rights" to justify old time discrimination.

I won't describe the scenes for you, they are not nice and I don't want to destroy their impact. I do encourage you to take your teenagers who play those violent video games, this is less violent than those, but there is brief nudity, but with a point ... degrading another human being; they need to understand what lies just below the surface of American history and remind them this is not the road we want to go down again.

However, I will leave this section with the following quote from Solomon's memoirs:

My narrative is at an end. I have no comments to make upon the subject of Slavery. Those who read this book may form their own opinions of the "peculiar institution." What it may be in other States, I do not profess to know; what it is in the region of Red River, is truly and faithfully delineated in these pages. This is no fiction, no exaggeration. If I have failed in anything, it has been in presenting to the reader too prominently the bright side of the picture. I doubt not hundreds have been as unfortunate as myself; that hundreds of free citizens have been kidnapped and sold into slavery, and are at this moment wearing out their lives on plantations in Texas and Louisiana. But I forbear. Chastened and subdued in spirit by the sufferings I have borne, and thankful to that good Being through whose mercy I have been restored to happiness and liberty, I hope henceforward to lead an upright though lowly life, and rest at last in the church yard where my father sleeps.

—Solomon Northup[9]

Scroll to Continue

Racism is a Core Value of all Humans - Can You Control It?

JUST BY SIMPLE observation, you can see throughout history numerous examples that lead enevitably to the conclusion that racism is core to the make-up of all humans, to one degree or another. Before going on, I need to define racism, for me Wikipedia does just fine:

Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified.

I defy anyone to find any sustained period of history among any culture where racism at some point in time didn't finally exhibit its ugly head; I just don't think it can be done; I have looked at a lot of history over my years and it is ubequitous. On the other hand, I can also find many, many periods thoughout history, in many, many cultures at different and sometimes cyclical times where coexisting races got along famously; for a while. But, in time, it didn't last.

Nevertheless, what that tells me is that racism can be contained, IF YOU TRY; it can be done but, you have to work at it. If you don't work at it hard and continuously, you will fail and nature will take its course; the latent racism that is in all of us will rise up and consume us once again.

Protesting Quotas

NOT JUST IN AMERICA

NOT JUST IN AMERICA

"Green Book"

I am ashamed to say I had no idea what the "Green Book" meant. Until I saw the movie, I thought it was something about a musicians song book (you'll see why in a second). Instead, the Green Book was a real book, originally titled The Negro Motorist Green-Book. The purpose of the Green Book, you see, was to provide a guide for blacks to navigate the South safely by pointing out where they were welcome to eat and sleep and where they would be rejected by whites.

The Green Book's, the movie, plot is simple (and the acting and message were superb): A renowned black musical genius wanted to tour the South and bring culture and entertainment. He also wanted to break the stereotype about blacks. The movie is a true story about classical and jazz pianist Don Shirley, played by Mahershala Ali, and his unlikely driver/bodyguard Tony Vallelonga played by Viggo Mortensen, an Italian-American bouncer.


A Stark Symbol of Racism in America (It would probably be useful today)

THE 1963 - 1964 EDITION

THE 1963 - 1964 EDITION

The story is set just prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as blacks were fighting for their civil rights. Dr. Don Shirley, a black musical prodigy, schooled in classical and jazz piano. He wanted to bring his music to white audiences in the deep South to make a point.

He understood the dangers of a black man travelling in the South and wanted to hire a white chauffeur and bodyguard and ended up hiring a bouncer from a temporarily closed Copacabana nightclub, Tony (Tony Lip) Vallelonga. The two men could not be more opposite; Shirley - refined, morally and ethically strict, understated, and talented beyond belief; Tony - loud, earthy, streetwise, and somewhat bigoted.

The story develops a growing friendship, trust, and respect for the other while overcoming the racism endemic to the deep South. The scenes underscore how insignificant the Southern whites, who hire him to entertain family and friends, thinks blacks are, even for ones of huge talent and stature as Dr. Shirley. His tour ends with Shirley, at the urging of Tony, to swallow his high ethical and cancelling a performance after being snubbed by person hiring him. Upon arriving at the venue, which includes an elegant restaurant he was shown his "dressing room" - a closet. He was hungry and wanted to have dinner with his white companions at this "whites only" restaurant - he was denied. Previously, when confronted with such insults, he would fulfill his contractual obligations and play anyway. This time he didn't.

When, after much argument, it became clear he wasn't going to allowed to eat there, he and Tony took off to a black restaurant that was suggested. There, instead of playing a magnificent theater, he gave his performance on a small stage in this honky-tonk to an all black audience (save for Tony). He also, again at Tony's suggestion, played his first classical piece of the tour (he told Tony he thought his Southern white audience would appreciate classical music).

The movie ran the gamut racial issues as Dr. Don and Tony traveled from venue to venue. There was outright violent racism as Shirley got beat up at a bar he shouldn't have wandered into (he was an alcoholic it seems). Then there was when he had to travel back to his motel to go to the bathroom, because he refused to use the mansion's outhouse that it's black servants were forced to use in 1963.

It is a movie that deserved the Oscar (although my favorite was the Bohemian Rhapsody about Queen and Freddie Mercury.)

Racism and Bigotry in America

AMERICA HAS BEEN A VIOLENTLY RACIST COUNTRY for most of its existence, some 345 of the last 395 years since white man and black man shared the same soil on the East coast (the first slaves arrived in Virginia in 1619, a year earlier than when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, MA); that is a very long time, y'all. Then, from 1619, until 1964, the non-progressive conservative side of America, abetted by classical liberals who, while not actually supporting the enslavement of another human nevertheless doesn't believe the federal government should interceded to prevent it, has fought to keep the Black American an oppressed people. The oppression is either in absolute servitude through the mechanism of legal slavery or, after losing the Civil War they forced America in to over the question, effective servitude such as that depicted in "The Help", through such legal subterfuge as "Jim Crow" and "Separate but Equal." laws passed by a conservative-leaning Supreme Courts.

I draw the line at 1964, because that was the year in which the Civil Rights Act was passed by a Progressive Congress. With it came, what are today such dirty words as, "Equal Opportunity", "anti-discrimination", "fair housing", "affirmative action", and the like. Before continuing though, I want to expand my scope a bit to include the "father" of racism ... Bigotry. Racism is, after all, just Bigotry applied to race. Trusty 'ole Wikipedia defines a Bigot as:

"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views."

When one speaks of racism in America, one must speak of bigotry in America, which is a much larger issue but speaks of the same problem with the landing the Puritans at what today is today, Plymouth, MA.

So, back to 1964. The Civil Rights Act was the first major act by the federal government since the Emancipation Proclamation and,beginning in 1865, the ensuing XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments to the Constitution designed to harness the rampant,, endemic, race-based bigotry in America. There was a plethora of programs put in place to do several things 1) try to correct the institutional and cultural imbalances created by three centuries of purposeful, concerted individual and governmental active and coordinated policies designed to dehumanize and subjugate a race, 2) try to undo the impacts of individual, corporate, and state governmental discrimination, as depicted in "The Help" and in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, in order to maintain the status quo without slavery, 3) try to level the playing field and keep it level from here on out, and 4) try to prevent discrimination in the future. In the following 47 years, the religious and secular conservatives in America have, in a largely successful effort, attempted to roll back each and every one of these initiatives on, of all things, Constitutional grounds.

I'm Not Picking On Conservatives, Really!

REALLY, I AM NOT! I am not trying to be mean, either. Or, unfair. Let me digress a moment in order do some consolidation. A few times now, I have made reference to religious and secular conservatives. For the purpose of this of this hub, they can be considered one in the same. When I speak of religious conservatives, I include all religious fundamentalist from each of the "Great" religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Also, although in America it is rare, when I speak of secular Conservatives, I don't just mean the political right, but would also include the politically very far left, Communists, as it were. Generally speaking though, I am talking about the Social Conservatives that control the Republican Party today.

As I have already made note of, America started out as a violent and lethally bigoted society; in 1619 we began importing and abusing Africans as slaves; the Protestant Puritans ostrasized and punished Catholics and hung, in 1692, 14 women and 5 men because they weren't good Christians. These God-fearing Protestant, pre-Americans also crushed one man to death beneath heavy stones attempting to get him to confess to his sins; these famous atrocities, the Salem Witch Trials, were not isolated, just the only one that made its way down the annals of history. This bigoted conduct, although dimished, continues to this day in the good Christian people of Rutherford County, TN in 2011, are carring on the good fight using the courts, protests, and yes, some terrorism of their own.trying to stop the construction of a mosque for the people from that "non-religion" (that is what they tried to prove, unsuccessfully, in court) Islam, to pray in; their sole reason ... the same as for the Puritans 409 years earlier, wrong religion, or in this case, non-religion; in other words, pure bigotry.

If you are a careful observer, it will occur to you that the political and philosophical of all of those I just described would clearly not be described as "moderate" or, heaven forbid, "liberal"; either from a secular point of view or a religious one. The one thing in common is the social conservatism, again whether it be secular or religious, behind the philosophy that drives these behaviors that have been such an embarrasing part of American history.

WHAT DOES HISTORY REALLY TELL US?

IT IS QUITE revealing, actually, and "The Help" got me thinking about it; it just so happens I wrote of this in another hub regarding President Obama's accomplishments so I thought I would add it here; it is very hard to refute.

Be they Democrats, Whigs, anti-Federalists, Republicans, or Republican-Democrats, all large political parties at one time or another in the history of American politics, social conservatives have been consistent, very consistent in their philosophies regarding social, economic, political, and government issues. What has that record been by social conservatives, evangelical and fundelmentalist Christians? To name just a very few, they fought tooth and nail, often violently, over the years against

  1. making slavery illegal
  2. allowing blacks and whites marry
  3. social security
  4. Medicare
  5. the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  6. homosexuals fighting for America
  7. allowing homosexuals who love each other to marry each other (stll being fought out)

"The Help" brought all of this sadly to mind again and, frankly, made me angry which is why I am wrote this hub for I hope it makes you angry as well.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT RACISM IN AMERICA TODAY?

N = 41

Lot Better - 7

Somewhat Better - 8

Little Better - 13

No Change - 4

Little Worse - 0

Somewhat Worse - 1

Lot Worse - 4

Unsure - 4

The latest update (Mar 2019) saw an increase in only "Unsure" and "Lot Worse"

UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS

WITH SUCH A LOW RESPONSE RATE, 33 SO FAR (I need 40, please), which surprises me given the number of views this hub has had, 6166, for a participation rate of 0.5% which is an extremely low rate, even for my surveys. Any ideas as to why readers are so hesitant to express anonymous views on this subject?

In any case, it makes it very hard to discern much from the above survey and the Demographic surveys below; but, I will take a generalized stab at it although I would like have about 40 results of this survey as a minimum. GIVEN, the question asks for a comparison between the 1950s and today, it would seem sensible to me to take responses of "Not Changed At All" and "Gotten a Little Better" as Negative responses. Even "Gotten Somewhat Better" would be a neutral response if one assumes race relations in the 1950s were only "somewhat better" than they were just after emancipation. If you buy into this assumption then only 30% of respondents believe there has been significant improvement since the 1950s while 47% disagree ... and that is very sad, very sad indeed.

Add in the results from Demographic Survey #2 below and I can make an initial educated guess. I can do this if I make one crucial assumption ... that Whites are more optimistic than Blacks about the improvement in conditions for Blacks in America. (Since the other groups are so small at the moment, I only have to worry about Whites and Blacks.)

This isn't a WAG (wild-assed guess) but one based on observation of comments among my White relatives and peers and Black friends and peers. There is a bright divide in perceptions, it would seem. Based on the above assumption then, to derive meaning from the survey results is like putting a puzzle together using the assumption to constrain how the numbers fit together, just like the shapes of puzzle pieces constrain how they fit together.

Therefore, based on my assumption and the 20 responses to my ethnicity survey (which I scaled to 23 to match the number of main survey responses), the table below displays my initial estimate of who believes what regarding the status how things have or have not improved vis à vis racism in America. Keep in mind, with only 20 responses the margin of error is huge.

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY #2

IN NUMBERS

N = 31: African American - 5; Asian - 2; Caucasian - 10; Middle Eastern - 2, Other - 6

[Demographic Surveys 1 (political leanings) and 3 (gender) are at the bottom of the Hub.]

RECENT PERSONAL OBSERVATION

THIS SECTION MAY GET ME INTO a lot of trouble if my family reads it but what I have to say is nevertheless what I see and it needs reporting for it bears directly on the on-going problem with racism in America. My wife and step-kids will tell you they are not bigoted toward blacks, and I am sure they absolutely believe that to be true. But, when you listen to their rhetoric and the defense of various statements they make, you get the distinct feeling their belief in not being bigoted is misplaced.

With some exceptions, they believe that blacks, in general, are now bringing their own problems on their own heads, they just don't "try hard enough", "they have a real bad attitude toward life", " all they want is a hand-out" is what I hear. Unfortunately, I am now starting to hear a little of that from my step-grandson.

At one time, he thought his mother was going to give him a Hispanic sister, he really, really wanted a sister, and didn't care what ethnicity it was at the time, until he saw his brother for the first time. Then the sister idea wasn't such a good one any more. Anyway, the point is the thought of a Hispanic sister didn't upset him in the slightest then, I think this was Kindergarten. He met his brother the next year.

In between that time, I heard my first indication of an "attitude" against other races. I don't remember what it was. And in the ensuing three years, I have heard a few more, not very many for sure, but enough to catch my attention. To the credit of his mom and Grammie, they corrected him immediately and I was happy for that. But so often in other families, this behavior is not correct, in fact it is encouraged and a new generation of bigots is born.

I don't know if hatred of others of a different skin color is visceral, in other words in-bred, part of a persons make-up or not. But, I do know that if it is, it can be controlled. Personally, I get a very physical negative reaction when I see two men kissing. It is so bad, it is even hard for me to even type the words; I get this gut-wrenching feeling doing it. Nevertheless, I know intellectually what it is, and know it will pass, I know this is my problem and not that of those two men.

For me, this reaction is keep me heterosexual, I was simply wired this way. I am also very aware that those men were wired differently such that they are not repulsed by homosexual attraction, in fact just the opposite. So long as they don't try to force their lifestyle on me, I have no right to make a judgement of any kind about them. Why is it that heterosexuals find a compelling need to make the immoral and, therefore, unGodly choice to force our lifestyle on them?

I would put forth the same argument regarding Blacks or Hispanics or Jews or Catholics or any other minority in this country. Why is it the majority finds itself compelled to make the rest of us like them?

AN ESTIMATE OF WHO THINKS ATTITUDES ABOUT RACE IN AMERICA HAVE OR HAVE NOT IMPROVED OVER TIME.

NOTE: The entries into this Table are estimates. They are, however, not "guestimates" but are based on a very limited number of combinations that solve the restraints from the above Poll and Demographic Poll #2 along with some common sense regarding

ETHNIC GROUPA LOT BETTERSOME BETTERA LITTLE BETTERABOUT THE SAMEA LITTLE WORSESOME WORSEA LOT WORSE

WHITE

5

6

1

0

0

0

0

BLACK

0

0

1

.1

0

.1

3

ASIAN

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

OTHER

0

0

5

2

0

0

0

THOMAS JEFFERSON

the-movie-the-help-sobers-you-up-a-bit-doesnt-it-discrimination-in-america

THOMAS JEFFERSON, A VERY PARADOXICAL PERSON

I JUST ADDED THIS SECTION FROM a biography by Alf J. Mapp Jr., Thomas Jefferson, America''s Paradoxical Patriot. I include it to offer a quote from the book by Jefferson regarding slavery and slaves. Socially, Thomas Jefferson as a progressive beyond his times, in spite of the fact that he was a slave owner. He fought hard for the eventual emancipation of all slaves and for the prohibition of importation of slaves into Virginia. On the other hand, he apparently did not believe blacks were the intellectual equals of caucasians (a believe that did not carry over to Native Americans, however) and he did not believe in the mixing of the two races; after emancipation, Jefferson had a plan for the humane transport and settlement to a new country.

Nevertheless, I thought it important to share his thoughts on the matter with the reader, especially those regarding how bigotry is passed down father to son. In his "Notes on the State of Virginia" Jefferson states the following:

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it, for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his sel-love, for restraining intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circles of smaller slaves, fives a loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities.

The man mus be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor for another; in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavors to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. [here, Jefferson's perception regarding how slaves felt about America itself, ended up being wrong]t

With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labor for himself who can make another labor for him. THis is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that is justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only a revolution of the wheel fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that t may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.

But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they sill force their way into every one's mind. I think a change is already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of th e slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation. (T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia)

What caught my attention when first reading this passage was Jefferson's initial observation of how racial hatred is passed from father to son and mother to daughter over time. It is as true today as it was when Jefferson observed it and then put words to the idea. All one has to do is live in rural America to see living proof of this insidious mechanism brought on largely by intolerance combined with ignorance set in a backdrop of fear. Take away any one of those three components, and the incidents of racism decrease. Take away intolerance and fear, racism barely exists. The proof in the pudding of this is how well young children of all races get along until such time as adults finally teach them to fear, distrust, then hatre those who are different from them.

In later quotes, Mapp shows, through other quotes from the Notes that Jefferson believes that after emancipation, Blacks should be moved to their own country. One of many reasons Jefferson offers is his initial belief that Blacks are, on the whole, mentally inferior to Whiles and goes on to prove it. He was not alone in this belief at the time, probably 99% of other Whites and many Blacks went along with this idiocy. But, to his credit, Jefferson did allow that his study into this area had just begun and his conclusions could be very wrong, which. as we all know, they are.

Another reason that you can see in the quote above is he didn't believe Blacks would want to live in America, a place that made their lives so miserable. That would be a natural conclusion, but as it turned out, very wrong as well. As one could glimpse in their willing participation in American Revolution and Civil War, Blacks, as a group, loved America, they wanted become a part of it, just a free part of it, to live their lives according to its Principles laid out in the Declaration Jefferson helped write. Even the last legal building block was put into place in 1964, long, long after Jefferson thought it might happen, judging from his last paragraph, Blacks, as a group, are still awaiting full emancipation into American society, at least to the level they are in English society today.

BEING BLACK IN WHITE AMERICA IN THE MID-1800s; JUST A MERE 150 YEARS AGO

WHO SAID WHITES DIDN'T GIVE BLACKS ANYTHING; ACCOUTREMENTS USED TO SHACKLE BLACKS DURING TRANSPORT TO MARKET.

WHO SAID WHITES DIDN'T GIVE BLACKS ANYTHING; ACCOUTREMENTS USED TO SHACKLE BLACKS DURING TRANSPORT TO MARKET.

the-movie-the-help-sobers-you-up-a-bit-doesnt-it-discrimination-in-america

THIS KIND OF ABUSE STOPPED AFTER THE CIVIL WAR (the hangings continued through the 1950s, however), although much of the South was plenty upset they lost control of their human property. Nevertheless, within 20 years, with the help of the Conservative Supreme Court, the oppression of Blacks in the South resumed in all respects except for legal slavery. Instead, other legal means were found to accomplish the same thing. As I have said earlier, it wasn't until 1964 and 1965 were the final laws put in place to make illegal the tactics used by Conservatives to suppress Black Americans.

Starting with the Rehnquist, and now with the Robert's Supreme Court, those laws are slowly being reversed.

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY #1

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY #3

© 2011 Scott Belford

Comments

Brad on February 17, 2019:

Scott

Really, this is typical Diversion, Distraction, AVOIDANCE, Red Herrings. This may work on your democrats, liberals, and Anti Trump because they don't analyze they just follow.

B: Scott, you keep deviating, cherry picking, and opining I am wrong but you don't support it. You are too attached to labeling, and the southern democrats were the one keeping blacks as slaves, starting the Civil War, and mistreating them for 100 years after that, and they didn't stop because of the Civil Rights in 1964 did they.

Scott Belford (author) from Keystone Heights, FL on February 16, 2019:

Nothing substantive here.

Brad on February 15, 2019:

Scott

"What claim? What was challenged?" - I'm not repeating things so you will need to go back and read what I wrote - it is clear as a bell.

B:

We have written a lot of words and statements, your statement about a claim is vague and ambiguous.

-------------------------

"I don't know how to ask "Why can't you use a term that doesn't change definitions." any better, so think about it."

B:

Again, you have no context leaving this statement vague and ambiguous.

------------

What do you mean "What?" I was very clear.

B:

That is why, I always copy your statement so there is no ambiguity.

-----------------

"The problem with your article is that you keep racism alive using history that is no longer relevant today." - YOU got to be kidding me!! Conservative Racists are keeping racism alive

B:

See now your statement is clear, and not vague or ambiguous. What conservative racists, it is the democrats, their voters and supporters that bring race into everything. For example as I stated before, any time any one criticized president Obama it was always construed to be racist. I could care less about any aspects of the person that is president, it is what they do that is up for accolades or criticism. And anti Trumpers that call president Trump Orange, and flat out say he is an Orangutan are racists. Yes, it doesn't count when personally attacking a white person, but the democrats and anti Trumpers want racism to be a diode that doesn't travel back to them.

Black Lives matter is also racist, and I submit that this continual utterances of racism is itself racist. The anti Trumpers turn anything that president Trump does into his act of racism. The prime example there is the "Temporary" ban on Muslims coming from 6 Muslim controlled countries is not racist. These countries are filled with terrorist, who had boasted they would infiltrate the asylum seekers. First it is temporary, 90 days, and second there are between 49 and 51 Muslim-majority countries in the world, according to estimates from 2010. The fluctuation is a result of the changing demographics in countries where Muslims comprise around 50 percent of the population. If this was a racist act president Trump would have made it to all of these countries, and he would have made the ban less temporary. It is clear to everyone other than the left, that president Trump wanted this time to properly vet this immigrants, and that is the job of any president.

-----------------

And you know very well, as do the other readers, I am not cherry picking anything - that is another FALSE charge of yours in order to deflect.

B: Once again I will copy the non cherries that you didn't respond to. Where are all these readers, you and I are the only ones commenting?

---------------------- Non Cherry Unanswered Comments--------------------------------

Cherry Picking Again

What about

B: Scott, you keep deviating, cherry picking, and opining I am wrong but you don't support it. You are too attached to labeling, and the southern democrats were the one keeping blacks as slaves, starting the Civil War, and mistreating them for 100 years after that, and they didn't stop because of the Civil Rights in 1964 did they. I once again mention that in this century the democrats took a different tack about the blacks because they were losing their votes. It escalated when Obama took office, and everything became a race issue. You couldn't criticize president Obama because he was "black", so when people criticized him it automatically became a race issue.

As I also said, the blacks were kept in welfare as a handout, and no one gave them a helping hand. That is the same as being a slave, you are bound to your master or captor in this case the threat of no more handouts.

-------------------------------

"And the rest of your claim is factually incorrect. Their slave masters of old are conservatives. Their protectors of today (and the past) are liberals. That is not even open up to debate, unless you want to argue that the sun isn't some variation of yellow."

B: There you go with labels. You are saying that the politicians that caused riots in 1964 were conservatives? We don't have a liberal or a conservative party, we have either democrat or republican. And it was and is the democrat party that gave them handouts that kept them beholding to their master the democrat party.

-----------------------------------------------

When you claim ""Once again you missed the point, because the Civil Rights Amendments was created because of the Southern Democrats no matter how you label them." you are as wrong as you can be. Virtually every Southern Democrat voted Against the CRA. It was the Northern liberals (Republican and Democrat) who got that passed with a lot of arm-twisting by a now liberal LBJ.

B: I don't think so. The north passed these amendments to make sure that the sure didn't become vengeful against the freed slaves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Belford (author) from Keystone Heights, FL on February 12, 2019:

"What claim? What was challenged?" - I'm not repeating things so you will need to go back and read what I wrote - it is clear as a bell.

I don't know how to ask "Why can't you use a term that doesn't change definitions." any better, so think about it.

What do you mean "What?" I was very clear.

"The problem with your article is that you keep racism alive using history that is no longer relevant today." - YOU got to be kidding me!! Conservative Racists are keeping racism alive

And you know very well, as do the other readers, I am not cherry picking anything - that is another FALSE charge of yours in order to deflect.

Brad on February 12, 2019:

Scott

"You made the original claim - You need to provide evidence for it when challenged."

B: What claim? What was challenged?

"Aren't you stuck on using labels by insisting on using the label Southern Democrat rather than the philosophically correct and UNCHANGING label of Conservative? Conservatism and Liberalism are a relative constant throughout time yet you choose to pick a label that changes its philosophy every few decades. That makes no sense. Why can't you use a term that doesn't change definitions."

B: I don't understand the question.

"ALSO, if you read political history on parties, rather than your own bias, you will find "I once again mention that in this century the democrats took a different tack about the blacks because they were losing their votes." IS totally wrong. The "because" is that conservatives fled Democratic party to the GOP once the liberals gained the upper-hand."

B: What?

AS YOU recall, the same thing happened in the 1860s when the liberal National Union Party was created to allow the liberals in the Democratic party to vote for the liberal Lincoln. Once elected, they changed the party name to the liberal Republican Party"

B: The problem with your article is that you keep racism alive using history that is no longer relevant today.

Cherry Picking Again

What about

B: Scott, you keep deviating, cherry picking, and opining I am wrong but you don't support it. You are too attached to labeling, and the southern democrats were the one keeping blacks as slaves, starting the Civil War, and mistreating them for 100 years after that, and they didn't stop because of the Civil Rights in 1964 did they. I once again mention that in this century the democrats took a different tack about the blacks because they were losing their votes. It escalated when Obama took office, and everything became a race issue. You couldn't criticize president Obama because he was "black", so when people criticized him it automatically became a race issue.

As I also said, the blacks were kept in welfare as a handout, and no one gave them a helping hand. That is the same as being a slave, you are bound to your master or captor in this case the threat of no more handouts.

-------------------------------

"And the rest of your claim is factually incorrect. Their slave masters of old are conservatives. Their protectors of today (and the past) are liberals. That is not even open up to debate, unless you want to argue that the sun isn't some variation of yellow."

B: There you go with labels. You are saying that the politicians that caused riots in 1964 were conservatives? We don't have a liberal or a conservative party, we have either democrat or republican. And it was and is the democrat party that gave them handouts that kept them beholding to their master the democrat party.

-----------------------------------------------

When you claim ""Once again you missed the point, because the Civil Rights Amendments was created because of the Southern Democrats no matter how you label them." you are as wrong as you can be. Virtually every Southern Democrat voted Against the CRA. It was the Northern liberals (Republican and Democrat) who got that passed with a lot of arm-twisting by a now liberal LBJ.

B: I don't think so. The north passed these amendments to make sure that the sure didn't become vengeful against the freed slaves.

------------------------------------------

Another false statement "The democrats may have changed their approach but that doesn't mean they have changed. As I mentioned when the blacks became a voting source, the democrats changed step to capture them." - that is simply NOT true. Conservative democrats effectively took away most of their voting rights again until liberal Democrats (former Lincoln Republicans) got it back for them

B: Until 1920 women including black women were not allowed to vote.

"You are right, I cannot deny that I am a very strong anti-Trump person; and for the same reasons I won't deny I am a strong Putin/Un/Hussain/Hitler/Stalin person."

B: And why are you a very strong anti Trump person? I have no idea what you mean about Putin? We don't have any of these people. You were OK when Hillary and president Obama didn't stop Putin from getting control of our Uranium. If you want to deny that, then provide some real proof. Putin wasn't the enemy then, and Putin and Russia weren't the enemy when Hillary Clinton got her Russian Dossier to attack Trump. They call it the Russian Dossier because the information came from Russia. That is more of a connection to Russia by Hillary and DNC than anything about Trump.

"It is my nature to care about people no matter what demographic they belong to; which is why I am a social liberal.

B: What allegiance to America or Americans? How have you or the democrats helped them?

" On the other hand, my allegiance is to America. Set aside the small criminal element of illegals, the remainder are an economic benefit to America and our laws should be changed to make use of that. They are more law abiding, harder working, more motivated to succeed and a host of other things than native born Americans. That is just a fact.""

B: Small criminal element, the jails and prisons in the US are loaded with them, and they are Convicted Felons, and a felony is a major crime. Yet, you and the democrats setup sanctuary cities to keep them from being deported. How does that help the Americans that live and work near them? What kind of justification is there to protect convicted felons?

The only people benefiting from the illegal aliens are businesses that get cheap labor, and much of the illegal alien money goes back to Mexico. Santa Ana CA go to the post office on mondays and see the money go south. There is nothing cheap, about it and estimates range from $20 billion to a $100 billion to pay for these 20 million illegal aliens. There are direct costs like Free education, Free medical, and they do get welfare regardless of the law. They drive without insurance and that costs insured drivers higher premiums. It is very expensive to man the prisons that are being over crowed to the point where judges force the early release of thousands of prisoners.

There is a lot a gangs coming into the US and I have written five articles on it with verified information from the government. But, you probably don't think that gangs like MS 13 are a problem. In CA the Hispanic population is equal to that of the white population. The difference is that they contain illegals, and they have a higher number of children that we the taxpayers pay.

$20 billion dollars of illegal drugs come into the country through the open border every year, along with contraband, child trafficking. Add up the costs of stopping illegals, capturing illegals, courts to process the illegals, the police to handle the criminal illegals, the damage both financially and in lives is very costly. And you the person that cares about everyone doesn't think that it is wrong to let someone just walk across the border and get taken care of, while thousand of people from all over the world go through the legal, expensive and time consuming process can't get in. This is true is you come from Canada. Yet, you give these illegals a free pass. You didn't comment when I mentioned how these illegals demonstrate in Los Angeles flying their flag while burning our flag. These are the people you choose to favor.

You think that democrats resisting the president and the republicans is the American Way, when I always thought the American Way was to vote for the change, not disrupt the country because you person didn't win the election. These are the democrats that you support while disrespecting the office of the president. If you didn't like your commanding officer in the service and did this

Article 90: Assaulting or Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer

Disobeying a superior commissioned officer: 1. The accused received a lawful command from the commissioned officer. 2. The officer was the accused service member's superior commissioned officer. 3. The accused was aware that the officer is his/her superior commissioned office. 4. The accused wi

Scott Belford (author) from Keystone Heights, FL on February 12, 2019:

You made the original claim - You need to provide evidence for it when challenged.

Aren't you stuck on using labels by insisting on using the label Southern Democrat rather than the philosophically correct and UNCHANGING label of Conservative? Conservatism and Liberalism are a relative constant throughout time yet you choose to pick a label that changes its philosophy every few decades. That makes no sense. Why can't you use a term that doesn't change definitions.

ALSO, if you read political history on parties, rather than your own bias, you will find "I once again mention that in this century the democrats took a different tack about the blacks because they were losing their votes." IS totally wrong. The "because" is that conservatives fled Democratic party to the GOP once the liberals gained the upper-hand.

AS YOU recall, the same thing happened in the 1860s when the liberal National Union Party was created to allow the liberals in the Democratic party to vote for the liberal Lincoln. Once elected, they changed the party name to the liberal Republican Party

Brad on February 11, 2019:

Scott

You provided no foundation to your ""The Blacks are victims of the Stockholm syndrome because their protectors of today are the same slave masters of yesterday." -" either. That statement is no different than me saying the sun is purple pokey-dot.

Also, the claim is false on its face. Stockholm Syndrome - "feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor." and I can guarantee you blacks neither trust nor hold affection for whites - nor should they ever.

B: Scott, you keep deviating, cherry picking, and opining I am wrong but you don't support it. You are too attached to labeling, and the southern democrats were the one keeping blacks as slaves, starting the Civil War, and mistreating them for 100 years after that, and they didn't stop because of the Civil Rights in 1964 did they. I once again mention that in this century the democrats took a different tack about the blacks because they were losing their votes. It escalated when Obama took office, and everything became a race issue. You couldn't criticize president Obama because he was "black", so when people criticized him it automatically became a race issue.

As I also said, the blacks were kept in welfare as a handout, and no one gave them a helping hand. That is the same as being a slave, you are bound to your master or captor in this case the threat of no more handouts.

-------------------------------

"And the rest of your claim is factually incorrect. Their slave masters of old are conservatives. Their protectors of toda