Liberal Policies, Feminism, and their Destruction of the Black Community

QueenofSpades
History will verify which party strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act. Its the same party that gave the infamous Filibuster in hopes to block it.

The Democratic Party.

You are quite simply misrepresenting the facts: the filibuster you are referring to was conducted by 18 SOUTHERN Democrats and 1 Republican for 54 days.

IN the 88th Congress, the Senate was composed of 68 Democrats and 32 Republicans (by the time of the vote).

The 18 Senators who opposed the bill were SOUTHERNERS. The majority of the Democratic party supported the bill.

The bill finally passed 71 to 29 under cloture, 47 Democrats voted for the passage; 21 against.

It was NOT the Democratic Party that invoked the filibuster nor worked against the Civil Rights Act ... it was SOUTHERNERS.

Technically, as I'm sure you would point out, they were Democrats but they were the regional minority bloc.

Regional meaning Southern, as several here have been saying.

PS: Those SOUTHERNERS now all vote REPUBLICAN. So, you know, you're actually arguing AGAINST your own point.

reply to post by QueenofSpades


I only know what I see with my own eyes. Being born in Harlem and raised in the Bronx I have seen the destruction of Liberal policy first hand. In the late 60's housing projects started popping up everywhere. Abortion clinics disguised as Family Planning. Welfare was pushed on the Black Race like hard. It almost felt like a well planned strategy. Talks of job growth were outnumbered by talks of welfare, project housing, and all other programs as if they were Gold. Looking back now, I would describe it as, Herding people into a confined area where they live in small apartments that are stacked 7 - 20 stories high. Promising them Crumbs, cause thats about what welfare amounts to, and keeping them there for going on 50 years now. Every year promising Extra Crumbs.

Or maybe the Liberals believe this is a good life for the Black folks they need votes from. To me it's an organized attack on Black folks. Keeping them down, confined, in drug & crime infested areas, with Zero healthy food to eat, and a Family Planning abortion clinic always a subway ride away. If that's progress then progress needs to change course. Or they are the real secret racists using petty propaganda to kill a race of people while making them believe they're the good guys with Free stuff.

I don't believe most liberal people on the street are this way. I believe a handful of people in power orchestrate this movement under the Liberal banner. Maybe why the Liberal party is always at odds with one another.

Gryphon66

QueenofSpades
History will verify which party strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act. Its the same party that gave the infamous Filibuster in hopes to block it.

The Democratic Party.

You are quite simply misrepresenting the facts: the filibuster you are referring to was conducted by 18 SOUTHERN Democrats and 1 Republican for 54 days.

IN the 88th Congress, the Senate was composed of 68 Democrats and 32 Republicans (by the time of the vote).

The 18 Senators who opposed the bill were SOUTHERNERS. The majority of the Democratic party supported the bill.

The bill finally passed 71 to 29 under cloture, 47 Democrats voted for the passage; 21 against.

It was NOT the Democratic Party that invoked the filibuster nor worked against the Civil Rights Act ... it was SOUTHERNERS.

Technically, as I'm sure you would point out, they were Democrats but they were the regional minority bloc.

Regional meaning Southern, as several here have been saying.

PS: Those SOUTHERNERS now all vote REPUBLICAN. So, you know, you're actually arguing AGAINST your own point.

edit on 13Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:51:25 -060014p012014266 by Gryphon66 because: Number correction.

edit on 13Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:53:16 -060014p012014266 by Gryphon66 because: Yeah'sn

Oh really ?

OH REALLY ?

Then how to you explain Senator Robert Byrd ?

Who was there. Remained a DEMOCRAT. and the Democratic party sung his prasies when after he died.

If one was to look into the African American struggles, one would be better off starting in the US intelligence communities reaction to the civil rights movement. I can define it in one word : drugs. Thought exercise: How many of you live in a suburban, primarily white neighborhood? Now how many of those people can go next door to buy drugs? Probably not many, as most suburban youngsters go to the inner city to purchase, from black neighborhoods. Now ask yourself "Why is that?". Do any poor black folks own airplanes or boats? How is it that the drugs magically appear? Hmmmm

Next, why are most black musicians constantly glamorizing hard drugs and violence? These are the role models of young black people. Why are most black role models espousing violence as a lifestyle? Anyone remember Motown? Mr. Postman changed to Mr. Dopeman. If you can't jump high or run fast then you better shoot these guns at people in another country or get used to the idea of flipping burgers. What is the most effective weapon against another group of people? A weapon that doesn't appear to be a weapon. In case you are wondering, I am not black. I just have been curious about the same issue. Any analysis points to the same conclusion. The conclusion is drugs. Politics has nothing to do with it. Make a few of them rich off drugs, the rest will want to learn how'd he do that. Then snowball rolling downhill. It is quite brilliant actually. Terrible and evil. But very effective and well thought out. Some people treat this life like chess. Maybe some people should think more and listen less. Just saying.

dukeofjive696969
Sorry but theres so much fail in your post, ...

...thats so much fail.

What are you,12 years old? "thats so much fail" ???

Sorry that it hurts, but the OP is right.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Gryphon brings up a good point, did you make this up as you went along? Do you have sources? I agree with the message you had in the beginning, and I have even heard it being discussed on NPR! I think it is a huge issue. I also think that what happens to black families could happen to white families just as easily.

On the other hand, there might always be people who live moment-to-moment and in a civilized, first-world country it only makes sense to ensure quality of life for all humans present, especially if one is religious, this should be a TOP priority.

Which brings me back to your O.P. - if the decay of a family unit and community reduces quality of life, then it seems prudent to take steps to combat that in that case. And there is evidence that this is the case in the black community.

Does a community have to have Protestant values? No, just Protestant communities. I thought I would throw that out there.

reply to post by QueenofSpades


I read all this post and this is what I got from it. Conservatives really hate change and broken chains that have held humans back because of their station in life or gender.

The premise of this thread reads like the intro to The Turner Diaries.
Black folks in America sure have lots of things against them. Female equality and universal suffrage aren't amongst them though.

QueenofSpades
At first glance, the title of this thread appears to indicate that my intention is to imply that the sole reason for the destruction of the black community is the enactment of liberal policies coupled with feminism alone. This is not the case. A person’s action is the result of a person’s choice. My intent is to show that the root cause of African Americans’ (in particular) degenerative state came at the embracement of liberal policies, which them lead them to adopt unproductive lifestyles.

It has long been held that the demise of the once strong-knit black community is a direct result of slavery. This is a lie long propagated by many liberals. However, Slavery DID NOT create the trend of broken families and it did not involve the support of destructive behavior.

Immediately after slavery, black families outnumbered whites and other ethnicities in the number of married couples,to include nuclear families. With reconstruction, blacks began to attend college, send their own children to college, own businesses, teach, practice medicine, law, and even held seats in Congress. This is all credited by Republican politicians who sought to not only end slavery, but extended the Right to Vote to blacks. Making this connection, blacks voted Republican hands down, adopting Conservative ideologies, such as aiming to become independent and living a Protestant lifestyle. This included being married before having children, not abusing drugs and alcohol, and had strong work ethics. Fundamentally, they understood the importance of having the man in the home and as head of his household. It allowed the woman to be as nature intended her to be: feminine, nurturing, and domestic.

But then, blacks began to switch political parties ....

During the 1950’s and 1960’s, heated race relations in the United States created a boiling pot of political turmoil. Both President John F. Kennedy and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. had been assassinated, bringing racial tension to a boiling point as most of Americans saw both assassinations as a threat to any Civil Rights movement advancement. The nation was experiencing a great deal of policy changing, as the reach of government grew larger and the Constitutional values got smaller....

And then came feminism.

Feminism refers to the sentiment that white women felt as they regarded their men (husbands, etc.) as becoming more successful than them with unequal pay. They felt “inferior’ to the white male because they were not able to hold all of the same job positions and even some political statuses as men, and felt a political and social movement was in order to gain this equal footing. Black women, striving to be like their white counterparts, were essentially 'duped' into believing that their men were controlling them and thus joined this movement....

Sadly, it was not intended for them.

Even after slavery, but before feminism and welfare, families were intact with both the father & mother to raise their children who all worked together to form a healthy team. Men went out to work and provided for the rest of the members, while women stayed home and nurtured babies, cleaned the home, and prepared the meals while providing a natural balance to the flow of a family. Instead, with the rise of feminism, women compete against men for jobs and because of this, they are expected to work 40 or more hours per week, leaving babies and young children needing to be reared by nannies or daycare centers, rarely-cleaned homes, and no one home to prepare the meals. Teamwork died. When the woman came home from work, no one was there to help her with the children, and there was usually no time to prepare a good hearty meal. McDonald’s soon became the meal of the day.

Women, before feminism, relied on traditional values and beliefs. Children did not attend daycares very young, to allow their mothers leave their homes and be part of a workforce. Naturally, that was a man’s job. They understood that men needed to be supported and needed; essentially, that was the "woman’s job", so-to-speak. They supported their men not just sexually, but emotionally. Feminism came in and made the man feel weak, and unwanted. How can he go out into the world and be motivated to provide if he doesn’t feel needed at all? Its’ natural for him to feel needed. This duo is the essence of a natural balance.

Feminism was also stated to help usher in the overgrowth of the welfare state.

According to liberals and feminists, the fundamental reasoning for poverty was that it was simply an economic problem. They assumed that poverty victims simply lacked the resources of wealth in the form of capital. Supply them with long term funding, and poverty magically disappears”...

The fact is that poverty is more of a mental state than it is a physical state. It entails a lack of motivation, irresponsibility, drug and alcohol abuse, and violence. These are all results from a dysfunctioning, single-parent household.

Majority of juvenile delinquent teens, and even imprisoned adults come out of single parent homes. Many of these children grow up never knowing their natural fathers. The Father taught the boys respect, responsibility, and most importantly, manhood. Without this, men tend to become effeminate, that is, to carry traits of a woman. They are dramatic, obsess over fashion, can't change oil in a car, live off of their "baby momma's", and tend to argue a lot because they are not equipped to resolve conflict, something learned through manhood.

How did this happen?

Feminism came in and urged women to be ‘sexually liberated’. In other words, be promiscuous because its ‘ok’. This naturally lead to the births of many out-of-wedlocked children. You add that to the welfare programs and at their reward and incentive system. More benefits are allotted to women with multiple children out-of-wedlock.

Liberal policies in general played a huge role in the destruction of the strong, nuclear family, they all agreed. Policies such as legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and abortion were all very detrimental to not only a healthy family, buy a healthy nation. Legalizing drugs sounds to me like an ‘I –can-do-whatever-I want-as long-as it-doesn’t- hurt-anyone childlike attitude”. These proponents aren't realizing that with the freedom of rampant drug use, more irresponsible behavior is bound to follow. More crime, not less crime, as the supporters of this movement would like to argue, because people will not be thinking properly. Reasoning skills are affected under the influence of drugs.

What about abortion?

This is not ‘mistake that just happens’ as its supporters proclaim. The bill allowing abortion, resulting from the 1970’s Supreme Court Case, stands as if it honors women the ‘freedom’ to do with her body as she pleases. However, she is not considering that in doing so, she has now infringed on the body of someone else; the body, or life, of the unborn. Not to mention the cost to tax payers for coverage of these medical expenses for the procedure, as usually these women are already on some form of assistance.

Abortion should not be a "quick fix"...The irresponsible behavior should be stopped before you get to the point of having to ‘fix it’ by taking a life.

Liberal polices mimic this pattern. Curtail and subsidize the behavior after the fact, not stop it before the damage is done. It’s not productive.

What say you?

This is what is wrong with conservatives. You constantly poke your nose in other people's business, where it doesn't belong. Btw your common sense is really screwed up; the reasons you give and the claims you make are so ill informed and childish, giving a detailed response would be an exercise in futility.

reply to post by QueenofSpades


Feminism was a early model for the new age movement.

reply to post by neo96


The numbers tell the story and put the lie to the idea that the Democratic Party didn't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Nothing in your post offers any facts to the contrary.

NotSoAnonymous
reply to post by QueenofSpades

 

I only know what I see with my own eyes. Being born in Harlem and raised in the Bronx I have seen the destruction of Liberal policy first hand. In the late 60's housing projects started popping up everywhere. Abortion clinics disguised as Family Planning. Welfare was pushed on the Black Race like hard. It almost felt like a well planned strategy. Talks of job growth were outnumbered by talks of welfare, project housing, and all other programs as if they were Gold. Looking back now, I would describe it as, Herding people into a confined area where they live in small apartments that are stacked 7 - 20 stories high. Promising them Crumbs, cause thats about what welfare amounts to, and keeping them there for going on 50 years now. Every year promising Extra Crumbs.

Or maybe the Liberals believe this is a good life for the Black folks they need votes from. To me it's an organized attack on Black folks. Keeping them down, confined, in drug & crime infested areas, with Zero healthy food to eat, and a Family Planning abortion clinic always a subway ride away. If that's progress then progress needs to change course. Or they are the real secret racists using petty propaganda to kill a race of people while making them believe they're the good guys with Free stuff.

I don't believe most liberal people on the street are this way. I believe a handful of people in power orchestrate this movement under the Liberal banner. Maybe why the Liberal party is always at odds with one another.

That's quite possibly the most asinine statement about racial issues in this country outside White Power literature I've ever read.

I'm white, Scot-Irish. I'm a Southerner. I've try not to be any more racist than anyone else, but like many, I'm as tired of hearing the race card played to explain every issue as anyone else. I hate the racism I see within the Black Community as well as within any other group.

But, THIS new garbage, along with the spiel of the OP, is about as insulting to African Americans as one can get. What's so humorous to me is the utter transparency of the racism here. So, Blacks were just all these "ign'ant" child-like folks that followed a trail of breadcrumbs into the housing projects? All "the liberals" had to do was waggle a few Welfare checks and the poor foolish Blacks came a runnin' to these vertical prison camps? PUH-LEEZ!!!

Your claim is that Black America is so ... what, backward? mentally deficient? that they didn't realize, and still don't, that they have been hoodwinked by "the liberals"?

What you can tell clearly, here, is that these "pieces" are being scripted by the same, die-hard, segregationists *cough, southern Republicans, cough* who really do believe that African Americans will not see the thin veneer of "concern" for them that is barely covering these wholesale revisionist lies about American history.

In my opinion.

neo96



Then how to you explain Senator Robert Byrd ?

Who was there. Remained a DEMOCRAT. and the Democratic party sung his prasies when after he died.

Funny you bring up Robert Byrd. He was one of the few southern Democrats who actually changed his ideology, and consequently stayed with the Democratic party. The ones who didn't change their ideology about civil rights, such as Strom Thurmond, actually switched parties - from Democrat to Republican, as the Republican party had become the party against civil rights.

Mr. Byrd’s perspective on the world changed over the years. A former member of the Ku Klux Klan, he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act only to come to back civil rights measures and Mr. Obama. A supporter of the Vietnam War, he became a fierce critic, decades later, of the war in Iraq. In 1964, the Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal lobbying group, found that his views and the group’s aligned only 16 percent of the time. In 2005, he got an A.D.A. rating of 95.

www.nytimes.com...

The mainstream, and correct, history of the politics of civil rights is as follows. Southern white supremacy operated out of the Democratic Party beginning in the nineteenth century, but the party began attracting northern liberals, including African-Americans, into an ideologically cumbersome coalition. Over time the liberals prevailed, forcing the Democratic Party to support civil rights, and driving conservative (and especially southern) whites out, where they realigned with the Republican Party.

nymag.com...

reply to post by QueenofSpades

It has long been held that the demise of the once strong-knit black community is a direct result of slavery. This is a lie long propagated by many liberals.

Was the strong-knit black community destroyed back in Africa then? Because, I can see how slavery would seriously mess all that up. As for strong knit communities here, the slaves weren't actually permitted to have a real community once they arrived on these shores - not for quite some time...I would think it might be difficult to regroup. But, no? They were doing fine until the tricksy Democrats got ahold of them? :-)

And then came feminism.

There was a member here that used to voice similar opinions (and they are just that - opinion)

I miss her

Preposterous as her arguments were, it made for some good threads and delicious, delirious arguing. Very entertaining

Welcome to ATS Ms. Star...stuff

(Hope the Ms. part doesn't offend you. Or, maybe I do - little bit)

:-)

Gryphon66
QueenofSpades


4. Blacks began to become Democrats in the 50s and 60s because the Republicans had indeed started shifting toward what they are today, and had no real interest in supporting equal or civil rights, and the Democrats demonstrably did. John F. Kennedy and his brother were among the first to risk the ire of their own party to do the right thing.

... and from there, by and large, your piece merely devolves into typical right-wing cant. Others can take that apart if they wish.

A bit oversimplified. The Civil Rights act of the 60s would not have passed without Republican support (btw, I am neither Republican, nor Democrat) and some of the more vocally racist in Congress and govt in general were Democrats.

The Democrats were, shall we say, more interested in making politics with the race issues than Republicans and were also more organized and driven to establish civil rights, true.

HIs point (the OP) regarding Liberal policy screwing the Black Community does have fair evidentiary support.

Johnson's War on Poverty was a thinly disguised War on Black Poverty that created the conditions and the incentives to increase poverty. I doubt it was intentional, but the effect was the same.

By providing welfare and incentives that leaned heavily toward rewarding those with no drive, education or ambition they began the creation of a different form of Ghetto. One that rewarded people for doing nothing.

Now we have a segment of society that is quite capable of playing the system. They live in dumps called Section 8 housing and raise children with no decent role models. This in turn creates a whole new generation (the baby mamas) of people who know no better than how they were raised.

The tragedy is the children. Escaping from an environment like that is extremely hard, specially when you consider the role models involved. And yet, the best our govt can do, in their infinite wisdom, is to increase handouts...I mean really. All I have to do is pay $25 a month for an all utilities paid apt and I can collect food stamps (called SNAP these days) and then at tax time, I can file my taxes (little or no income) and get thousands back from the govt that I have never paid in, and never will. Add to that SSI of about $660 / month and dang...I don't have to work and I can do anything I want as long as my expectations are pretty low. All govt incentives are to stay...not leave such a system.

As to what the dynamics of the fractured nuclear family unit in the black community are...I fear much more complex, or perhaps not. I would rather not get into that today, simply because I have not given it much thought or research.

The basic premise of his statement is correct, IMO, however I disagree regarding the feminist connection. That would be an economic discussion for another day.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Funny you bring up Robert Byrd. He was one of the few southern Democrats who actually changed his ideology, and consequently stayed with the Democratic party. The ones who didn't change their ideology about civil rights, such as Strom Thurmond, actually switched parties - from Democrat to Republican, as the Republican party had become the party against civil rights.

That is a bit of a misrepresentation...one that happens to be quite popular but not wholly correct.

You do realize that without the support of Republicans the Democrats could not have passed, would not have passed the Civil Rights act even though they pretty much owned congress, right?

To restate what you have said, I would put it this way: "The Democrats seized the opportunity to gain the support of a significant minority and adopted the appearance of interest in Civil Rights".

While the Republicans have often shot themselves in the feet in various ways, to state, in so many words, that the Republican Party became the racist party is going a bit far. That is the perception, but hardly the whole truth.

Given the state of the black community today I would not hesitate to say that, with a few exceptions, Democrat policies have not been horribly helpful and in some respects, downright destructive. I mean, really...the evidence is in the pudding.

MOMof3
reply to post by QueenofSpades

 

I read all this post and this is what I got from it. Conservatives really hate change and broken chains that have held humans back because of their station in life or gender.

That is unfortunate, and untrue, at least by my experience.

reply to post by bbracken677


I believe which party Blacks belonged to before the Civil Rights era is irrelevant. Only a small percentage of blacks could overcome the poll taxes, tests, and other suppression techniques to stop their registration much less get to vote.

pleasethink
If one was to look into the African American struggles, one would be better off starting in the US intelligence communities reaction to the civil rights movement. I can define it in one word : drugs. Thought exercise: How many of you live in a suburban, primarily white neighborhood? Now how many of those people can go next door to buy drugs? Probably not many, as most suburban youngsters go to the inner city to purchase, from black neighborhoods. Now ask yourself "Why is that?". Do any poor black folks own airplanes or boats? How is it that the drugs magically appear? Hmmmm

Next, why are most black musicians constantly glamorizing hard drugs and violence? These are the role models of young black people. Why are most black role models espousing violence as a lifestyle? Anyone remember Motown? Mr. Postman changed to Mr. Dopeman. If you can't jump high or run fast then you better shoot these guns at people in another country or get used to the idea of flipping burgers. What is the most effective weapon against another group of people? A weapon that doesn't appear to be a weapon. In case you are wondering, I am not black. I just have been curious about the same issue. Any analysis points to the same conclusion. The conclusion is drugs. Politics has nothing to do with it. Make a few of them rich off drugs, the rest will want to learn how'd he do that. Then snowball rolling downhill. It is quite brilliant actually. Terrible and evil. But very effective and well thought out. Some people treat this life like chess. Maybe some people should think more and listen less. Just saying.

I lol at this.

I was born a white kid, living in a middle income white neighborhood and came to adulthood in the very very early 70s. I NEVER went to the black neighborhood to buy my dope (now you know what is wrong with me LOL). I didnt need to.
Most of the supply chain that I dealt with was: Mexico to white guy to white guy and possibly including yet another white guy. Not so much by design, just you run with the circles you ran with and trusted those you trusted. Someone from an outside group automatically brought suspicion.

I know the chains that I dealt with, cause at one point in time I was white guy #1 or 2 depending on how you looked at it. I gave up my childish ways once I grew up and realized that prison was not desirable and I was not, repeat not, invincible.

I was responsible for my own actions and decisions and choose NOT to blame my dumba$$ery on anyone else. I dont subscribe to this whole "I am effed up so I am going to blame my craapp on someone else, therefore I can feel better about myself. Oh and maybe I can get a hand out from it, some way...."

(the beginning of this reminds me of "The Jerk" and believe me when I say it took a huge amount of self restraint not to turn this post into something really intentionally humorous.)

MOMof3
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I believe which party Blacks belonged to before the Civil Rights era is irrelevant. Only a small percentage of blacks could overcome the poll taxes, tests, and other suppression techniques to stop their registration much less get to vote.

and I believe that I did not address what party they were, nor what party they became in the least bit....I.am.confused.

Or did you confuse the quote I replied to with my reply?

Or did you bother to read my reply at all?