Gracchus (1257 posts)March 18, 2017 at 1:18 pm
New Third Way meme: The New Deal was racist
I have noticed that among centrist Democrats there is this meme that economically left-wing politics cannot succeed unless racism is eliminated first, which, given how humans are, probably means that we will never get any real progressive reforms. Part of this theory is that the New Deal was basically racist. Now I recognize that the New Deal required compromises with Southern Dixiecrats and racist whites in the North as well, but even given these compromises plenty of progress was made on the racial justice front during the era of New Deal Liberalism. As Marshall Steinbaum writes:
Then there was the period from 1940 to 1970, which witnessed the greatest progress in closing the racial wealth and earnings gaps since Reconstruction, thanks to the strength of the New Deal coalition and the labor movement, which integrated the federal government’s military-industrial supply chain (as well as the military itself, following the war), and the Civil Rights Movement, which successfully pressed the federal government to intervene in the South on behalf of equal rights. That advance was eventually turned back the same way it was during Reconstruction: through an alliance of white supremacy and implicitly racialized “free market” ideology, the latter of which came to dominate both major political parties.
Maybe I am nuts but I am seeing this meme about the uselessness of left-populism to combat the Right on a number of centrist/Third Way websites. Has anybody else noticed this? The Jacobin article I linked above discusses an example of such an article from Vox.The Crone, OzoneTom, Major Hogwash and 9 othersBaba OhReally, Abelenkpe, bbgrunt, Spanishprof27, Mom Cat, leveymg, djean111, Populist Prole, roguevalley like this
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
4 months ago #15
4 months ago #12
4 months ago #22
4 months ago #31
4 months ago #32
mmonk (1280 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 1:20 pm
roguevalley (1637 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 1:21 pm
2. This is the dying gasp of corporatism. Anyone who embraces the third way
is deflecting their own racism outward. Third way policies and politics are racist because the only color they don’t hate it green.Remember, remember, the Fifth of November, the Gunpowder treason and plot! I know of no reason why the Gunpowder treason should ever be forgot! -V
Hobbit709 (2201 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 1:22 pm
3. Now they're throwing in the kitchen sink to see it will stick.I won't shut up and I don't waste my time teaching pigs to sing
Entrepreneur (1735 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 1:37 pm
4. Another spin version of the gibberish they spewed about Bernie ignoring racism
because his fight for economic equality, in their mangled argument, somehow took away from the fight against racism. It’s a completely bogus argument because keeping people poor and struggling financially to live day by day is an effective way to drain their will to fight back in other areas of injustice.
Also, it gives Third Way shills an excuse to keep voting the way their corporate Johns pay them to vote.No longer GoneFishin. Truth is I've never GoneFishin.
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to Entrepreneur - post #4) March 18, 2017 at 9:02 pm
hypergrove (171 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 1:52 pm
5. Integrating the military-industrial supply chain and the Civil Rights Movement?
Hmm, I wonder what Martin would say about that. Sounds like a crock of academic bullshit. The article appears to be written by a European far more knowledgable about politics ‘over there’.J ! Justice, Democrats, Justice ! P ! Primary the Corporatists ! R ! Roosevelt’s 2nd Bill of Rights !
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to hypergrove - post #5) March 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Marshall Steinbaum is a senior economist and fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.
The author wrote:
… Then there was the period from 1940 to 1970, which witnessed the greatest progress in closing the racial wealth and earnings gaps since Reconstruction, thanks to the strength of the New Deal coalition and the labor movement, which integrated the federal government’s military-industrial supply chain (as well as the military itself, following the war), and the Civil Rights Movement, which successfully pressed the federal government to intervene in the South on behalf of equal rights….
It means labor and the New Deal coalition integrated the military and military suppliers, and it’s true. I don’t think MLK had any problem with the integration of the US military or its supply chain.
Populist Prole (541 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm
6. The chutzpah gets more and more flagrant…in parallel with their desperation
I shudder to think what their next meme will be. it’ll be a doozy for sure.
I have noticed that among centrist Democrats there is this meme that economically left-wing politics cannot succeed unless racism is eliminated first
I really don’t believe they actually believe that in an intellectual way. I think it’s just an intellectually dishonest meta-distraction as a way they can “sell” sweeping economic populism under the rug. In turn, they’re trying to use a bogus sort of post-hoc logic that the new deal led to further social oppression, when all they’re really trying to do is take an anti-economic populist stance and try to work backward by picking points in the past that shows its flaws.
Of course the 10 ton monster in the room they miss is that for all their bleating about racism, they become elitist classists of the vilest sort.
Maybe I am nuts but I am seeing this meme about the uselessness of left-populism to combat the Right on a number of centrist/Third Way websites
Well certainly their is the collusion of like minds working toward a unified voice, but it’s just that: Like minds that don’t want to rock the gravy boat.
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to Populist Prole - post #6) March 18, 2017 at 9:17 pm
17. That's precisely it; the ptb don't mind talking about anti-racism/anti-sexism
etc. — that’s a meme they can use to divide and conquer: the “anti” is just the flip side of racism, sexism, homophobia and can be used to divide and conquer in the very same way.
But the ptb never want to talk about money; that’s where the rubber really hits the road. And neither do their enablers and spokesmodels in the top 10%.
PaganVoter (108 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 2:01 pm
7. They saw the poll that Sen. Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the
U.S.A. right now and his philosophy mirrors FDR’s New Deal policies and philosophy, so this attack on the New Deal is really aimed at attacking Bernie. It’s eerily similar to how the Hillbots attacked Bernie during the primary. They said that his crowds were too white and that he only appealed to white working class voters.
These attacks on the New Deal by corporatists are intentionally taken out of context of the history of the time. The New Deal policies were not racist, but the times were racist. FDR had to deal with Southern Whites, the infamous Dixiecrats, to get these policies as well as foreign aid to England, passed in Congress.
leveymg (2682 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 2:15 pm
8. It was a constant meme during the campaign at SV and other sites against Bernie
The Hillary campaign meme infuriated me because it was loaded with character assassination, disinformation, and libel in a coldly calculated strategy to deny Bernie wider minority support. Seems it’s being resurrected now to excuse the DNC/Third Way Dems total failures to re-elect a Democratic President, excuse their losses of majorities and failures to get progressive legislation passed. They didn’t really try, as it seems they’d rather lose than allow progressives into power, and steadfastly refuse to push policies that might offend Wall Street donors.
They’ve destroyed the Party in this era and are now tearing down the Party’s legacy of the past. Gotta hand them this, they are thorough.
I am more infuriated and alienated every day by what remains of the Democratic Party under the Clintonite/DNC/Third Way wing.
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to leveymg - post #8) March 18, 2017 at 9:35 pm
18. +100. I remember it very well; at first I was astonished and a bit taken
aback, because some of those pushing that line were black or self-IDd as such. But gradually I started to see that a lot of the BS they were pushing was flatly ahistorical and inaccurate — and pushing in a very mean-spirited way and weirdly giving H. Clinton credit as a civil rights pioneed over Bernie, though she wasn’t even old enough to have pioneered anything, and her one frigging CR credit in real time was in Marian Wright Edelman’s Children’s Defense Fund (founded 1973), and HC didn’t spend too much time there either.
Clinton worked at the Children’s Defense Fund for less than a year, and that’s the only full-time job in the nonprofit sector she’s ever had. She also worked briefly as a law professor.
Clinton spent the bulk of her career — 15 of those 35 years — at one of Arkansas’ most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards.
Neither she nor her surrogates, however, ever mention that on the campaign trail. Her campaign Web site biography devotes six paragraphs to her pro bono legal work for the poor but sums up the bulk of her experience in one sentence: “She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24475798.html#storylink=cpy
Hillary, as First Lady, advocated strongly for the restructuring of welfare. Her former co-workers at CDF, on the other hand, were infuriated. CDF founder and President Marian Wright Edelman declared that President Clinton’s “signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.”
“Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics,” the CDF president told Democracy Now in a 2007 interview. At the time, CDF “profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so,” Marian Wright Edelman explained.
Three senior officials on welfare policy resigned from the Clinton administration in response to Bill and Hillary’s scrapping of welfare. Peter Edelman, a legal scholar who at the time served as an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, told The New York Times, “I have devoted the last 30-plus years to doing whatever I could to help in reducing poverty in America. I believe the recently enacted welfare bill goes in the opposite direction.”
Wendell Primus, another high-ranking official in the department, quit in protest as well. A scientific study he had overseen showed that, because of PRWORA, more than a million children would fall into poverty. Peter Edelman disclosed that this study was “personally handed” to President Clinton, but was ignored. To remain in the Clinton administration then, Primus maintained, “would be to disown all the analysis my office has produced regarding the impact of the bill.”
Peter Edelman, a longtime friend of the Clintons, subsequently published an article in The Atlantic in 1997 titled “The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done.” In the piece, he warned that “the bill that President Clinton signed is not welfare reform. It does not promote work effectively, and it will hurt millions of poor children by the time it is fully implemented.”
The sad fact is, Edelman was right. I was initially sympathetic to Clinton’s bill (work is good, right?), but a careful review suggests that Bill Clinton’s welfare reform bill has been a disaster. One quick confirmation comes from reading Ross Gitell’s 2007 study for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Among other salient facts, the report says that over the last fifteen years (1989-2004), the bottom 40% of income earners in New England over the last fifteen years actually LOST money in terms of income. At the same time, the top 20% of income earners gained 20% or more in terms of income.
So thanks to a myriad of factors — not the least of which was the removal of a social safety net as a result of the welfare reform bill — the poor got poorer and the rich got richer. And the children suffered most of all. According to the Columbia University National Center for Children in Poverty, the number of children living in poverty grew by 1.2M from 2000 to 2006. Put more starkly, “Nearly 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $20,650 a year for a family of four…”
So, the next time you hear Hillary Clinton proclaim that her service on the Children’s Defense Fund qualifies her as an agent of change, think about the additional 1.2M children in poverty made possible by the Clinton welfare reform bill, the very same bill that caused the Peter Edelman to resign in protest more than ten years ago.
HassleCat (927 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 3:40 pm
9. The last chance to argue against economic justice.
Of course, we’re all familiar with the constant drumbeat that social justice must precede economic justice. Personally, I can’t find even a shred of logic in that, since fair housing and fair employment laws are very much economic justice. Racial integration of the military had a strong economic justice component. But maybe some people argue that those were mistakes, merely illusions to trick black Americans into believing they were getting something. And it is black Americans we’re discussing here, no mistake. They make up the one voting bloc that has been faithfully Democratic since the 1960s. We (Democrats) cannot afford to lose them, so we listen to what they say, and they say they don’t like talk of finding common ground with socialists, appealing to white working class voters, or anything else that doesn’t have the right tone.
Or do they? Who is “they?” The campaign to suppress talk of economic justice comes largely from within the party, from people, black people, who have some influence and authority within the party. Maybe they see such a zero sum game going on that they believe they will have to relinquish some of their influence if the party includes economic justice as part of racial justice. I can’t blame them for feeling that way, since politics is pretty much a zero sum game now. It is quite likely any effort to be more inclusive would dilute the influence of black people in our party, and they would not enjoy that. Who would? So they’re worried that any movement to restore elements of the New Deal would dilute their influence and result in more white people in important party positions. And that would happen, so they have a point. They’re only defending what they have won over the years.
But they’re defending a losing effort. No major political party can be perceived as captured by any particular group. This is the argument we try to use against the Republicans, that they are an exclusive club for rich boys. They counter our argument by appealing to religious conservatives, gun owners, and others who are not wealthy corporatists. More and more, particularly in the last election, the GOP convinced many working class people they were forgotten by the Democratic Party, ignored in favor of noisy blacks, Latinos, feminists, LGBTs, etc. Sure, that’s an unfair accusation, but what did we do about it? We told them, “Go ahead and vote for Trump. We don’t need you or your racist votes. We have nothing in common with you. You are not pure enough, not noble enough to vote for us.”
And this theme continues to drive many in our party to yell, “No common ground!” Any talk of a New New Deal is cozying up to racists, selling out black voters, giving up on racial justice. Part of the justification for this attitude is maintaining that the New Deal did nothing for black American. No black family ever got electricity, or irrigation water, or agricultural assistance, or a GI home loan, or anything else from New Deal programs. And this is true, to an extent. Because we had to bargain with Dixiecrats, many of the programs were segregated, and benefitted black Americans very little, but the New Deal was many years ago, instituted long before our party repudiated racism. The core values of the New Deal would be updated now, made racially inclusive, administered to ensure black Americans benefitted right along with everybody else. At least that would be the case if we dared to dream of anything beyond raking in enough money to win back the presidency, if we thought beyond the tight boundaries and narrow limitations we impose on ourselves.
One serious issue being obscured by all this debate is the one raised by Black Lives Matter. I’m throwing it in here as kind of a footnote, but it’s far more important than that. It is an example of a challenge where social justice should precede economic justice. We have to do something about young black men being gunned down in the streets without waiting to see if we can improve their economic circumstances. They won’t be lifted up from poverty if they’re dead. So the neoliberal wing of our party is right about this issue, although I notice they have made no real effort to do anything about it. They like to talk in non-specific terms about social problems, but they won’t stick their neck out to propose anything concrete.
Well, I could rant some more, but you’re getting tired by now. Thanks.
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to HassleCat - post #9) March 18, 2017 at 9:54 pm
19. Except the idea that New Deal programs did nothing for black folks is BS.
Take the GI Bill for example: The military was one of the earliest integrated institutions in American life, and the GI Bill was open to black soldiers.
But other benefits, which were not anticipated by its early
supporters, were the foundation the GI Bill provided for much of
today’s Black middle class and the education of the generation of
African Americans who helped spearhead the civil rights movement.
“The GI Bill was one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed
that has helped young Black males,” says Dr. William Hytche, former
president of the University of Maryland-Eastern Shore. “They used it as
a resource to secure their growth and their future.”
Many prominent African Americans benefitted from the GI Bill,
including Federal District Judge Robert L. Carter, entertainer Harry
Belafonte, and former Massachusetts Senator Edward W. Brooke (see
related news brief on page 11). Dr. Reginald Wilson, a senior scholar
at the American Council on Education, said the bill enabled him to
attend college after leaving the Air Force in 1947.
“The GI Bill was absolutely responsible for making it possible for
me to go to college,” Wilson says. “My family was very poor before the
war, and even after the war…”
The bill greatly expanded the population of African Americans
attending college and graduate school. In 1940, enrollment at Black
colleges was 1.08 percent of the total U.S. college enrollment; in
1950, it was 3.6 percent, according to the Biennial Survey of
Education, 1948-1950. Overall enrollment in Black Land Grant colleges,
according to a 1948 edition of The Journal of Negro Education,
increased by 50 percent between the beginning of the war and the
African American enrollment also soared at predominantly White
colleges in the north, midwest and the west after passage of the bill.
ACE’s Wilson said Black enrollment expanded from less than one percent
of the student body to tipwards of five percent at some schools. In
Wilson’s estimation, during the late 1940s at his alma mater, Wayne
State University in Detroit, Blacks constituted roughly 15 percent of
the student population.
Coinciding with the GI Bill was the Lanham Act of 1946, federal
legislation which funded the improvement and expansion of historically
Black colleges and universities….Black schools, in great need of repair and expansion
following World War II, received federal funding tinder the Lanham Act
at a rate of 33.4 square feet per veteran for new construction while
White schools received construction funding for 17.4 square feet per
veteran, according to The Journal of Negro Education.
City University of New York Graduate Center administrator Dr. Roscoe
C. Brown Jr., a former Tuskegee Airman, said GI benefits allowed him to
pursue a master’s and a doctorate degree full-time at New York
University while supporting his family during the late 1940s. According
to Brown, the majority of African Americans earning degrees as a result
of GI Bill benefits secured jobs in teaching and the civil service.
While many occupations remained closed to Blacks through the end of
the 1960s, the expansion of Blacks in education and the civil service
led to a substantial increase in the size of the Black middle class,
That article was written in 2007, before I started hearing the “New Deal was racist” meme.
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to HassleCat - post #9) March 21, 2017 at 5:22 pm
37. I think ordinary black folk would be quite happy to see some economic justice
Instead of it all going to the top — the “talented tenth.” Or we could say the new compradors.
TwilightSporkle (1796 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 3:47 pm
10. Saw it all through the primaries
Usually from people who thought white people were inherently evil and who refused to vote for a Jew because he was a Jew.
if the Democrats want to keep losing elections, they’re foing a masterful job.
What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace
But you only understand the language of the sword
I let the blade do the talking
So my tongue shall become iron
And my words the mighty roar of war
leveymg (2682 posts) (Reply to TwilightSporkle - post #10) March 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm
12. The origins of "the meme" was actually on RW websites. Got picked up and spread
by professional apparatchiks and provocateurs in Hillary’s campaign. Only later was it internalized and acted out by some persons of color. Here’s what I found when it first emerged in summer, 2015: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251465196
Right-wing media and the origins of the Bernie “doesn’t care about minorities” meme.
Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:17 AM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
When Black Lives Matter (BLM) disrupted a forum of progressive Democratic candidates at NRN15 this past weekend, they might not have known that they were reinforcing a racially divisive smear started by senior Washington columnists, Byron York and Charles C.W. Cook operating in the Right-wing echo chamber.
On May 27, the two published acoustically matched opinion pieces in two of the most conservative rags in America. York, the senior partner in this smear job, specializes in hit pieces against Democrats, writes for the Moonie Times spinoff, The Washington Examiner. His column was titled, “Bernie Sanders’ progressive Whitopia” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-progressive-whitopia/article/2565077. Could a racial smear across the face of Bernie’s campaign possibly have been a factor in that?
Mr. York, observed with apparent deep concern for what he portrayed as the excluded minority voices in Bernie’s kick-off campaign speech in Vermont a few days before. We’ve heard this theme repeated many times since across the web:
The startling omission was the issue of race and policing that has roiled the political debate in recent months. Ferguson, Baltimore, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray — none were in Sanders’ speech. Allegations of police brutality and black victimization were all absent. Sanders made one brief mention of African-American unemployment and at the end of his speech offered a catch-all sentence in which he envisioned an America “where every person, no matter their race, their religion, their disability or their sexual orientation realizes the full promise of equality that is our birthright as Americans.” But the racial issues that have dominated the news at various times in the past year were nowhere to be found.
Writing from his perch at the arch-conservative National Review, Cooke, the junior partner, amplified York, the Old Washington Hand. Cooke, obligingly filled in what he thinks is the answer about Sanders strategy of sticking to economic justice issues:
Why would he expend his energy critiquing the excesses of American policing when Barack Obama is in the White House and Hillary Clinton is busy condemning her own husband for the tough-on-crime policies he advocated when in office? Answer: He wouldn’t. His role in this game is to make Hillary more fiscally socialistic. Somewhere deep down, he knows that.
So, here we have it. The origins of the racial meme used to smear Bernie is a one-two tag team played by a couple of professional Right-wing hit men. This really isn’t a grassroots thing started by aggrieved minority activists at all. It’s just an old-fashioned political smear started by right-wing white men. Various others, for their own reasons, have picked up on this meme and run with it.
143 replies, 11902 views
cascadiance (2157 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 5:52 pm
13. Next thing you know they'll be calling MLK racist too!
… for having the *nerve* to ALSO be concerned about those suffering in the economy IN GENERAL and not just for minorities (albeit I would be the first to say that minorities suffer more in this regard!). Some of these TURD(!!) Wayers would perhaps say that MLK would support Trump today for standing up for the working class in the general (and therefore also the white liberal working class, which the neoliberal bankster lover BA$TARD$ HATE for voting for Trump when he spoke to them and the Clinton bums said there was no room for them in their CORRUPTED “Democratic” Party!
Go suck on it neoliberal bums. Your time is OVER. If you don’t want Republicans in charge any more than GTF OUT OF THE WAY so that we can have people running against them that actually CARE about most Americans that aren’t wealthy elites!Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to cascadiance - post #13) March 18, 2017 at 10:07 pm
21. they want republicans in charge. when the pubs are done people will
have forgotten how awful the dems were and they’ll be crying to have them back. that’s the new normal — out of the fat and into the frying pan every 8 years.
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to original post) March 18, 2017 at 7:29 pm
14. That's not new. The 'insiders' were playing that card at site voldemort
more than a year ago, long before the election. Esp. one “person of color” from AK. The new deal only worked for white people was the talking point; black people didn’t get squat, didn’t even get social security. There’s a bit of truth to it, but not nearly as much as the talking point makes it out, and mainly because domestic work, which a lot of black women did in those days, didn’t get SS coverage until roughly ~5-8 years after SS first passed. But everything that was covered, everyone was covered, white black or purple.
I’ve seen that meme all over the internet since, but I saw it first from the operatives at SV. Which makes me wonder, are they dems — or closet pubs?
IMO what’s going on is the attempt to read out of history any notion that there was ever a time without mass homelessness and rock-hard poverty.
Cause looking around today, we’re damn near back to those times now — the upper and upper middle are sitting pretty, the bottom 80% are just hanging on by their fingernails, the bottom 25% is drowning.
And the ironic thing is, black folk are probably the group that’s been hit worst by Clinton/Bush/Obama, repeated hits — except for the “talented 10th” who are doing well, since they’re the ones creaming off most of the benefits of equal opportunity policies. But blacks as a whole have lost household wealth big time and were probably the group hardest hit by the mortgage crisis.
I say may the goddamn liars choke on their lies and ill-gotten gains.
Major Hogwash (2314 posts) (Reply to FanBoy - post #14) March 19, 2017 at 10:24 am
23. It was a spectacular fail on their part.
Because Hillary was a Goldwater Republican while she was in high school and college. Goldwater not only wanted to reverse the trends of social programs started by FDR and advanced by the Democrats under LBJ, he wanted to end them all, once and for all time.
cascadiance (2157 posts) (Reply to Major Hogwash - post #23) March 20, 2017 at 12:14 pm
31. It's kind of amusing to find sites like snopes.com trying to rationalize this…
… and how she didn’t support a presidential candidate as a “Goldwater Girl” who DID vote AGAINST the Civil Rights Act then. Interesting on how they try to explain it in an obvious attempt to try and rewrite history for Hillary then here.Vote AGAINST the race to the bottom by both corporate parties who seek to screw workers over globally!
Major Hogwash (2314 posts) (Reply to cascadiance - post #31) March 21, 2017 at 8:03 pm
39. It was odd they set themselves up as the ones to arbitrate what is true.
Especially after September 11, 2001, when Michael Moore appeared on Larry King’s tv program a week later. And Michael talked to King about what had just happened in New York City.
Then Michael asked Larry King why it was, that during the 3 days just after September 11th, when no planes were allowed to fly in this country — all of the flights were canceled, every single one of them, and all of the planes were grounded, every single one of them — yet, for some reason, members of the bin Laden family that were living here in the United States, were allowed to board a jet and fly out of the country. Michael Moore asked King and his panel of guests why it was that they were allowed to fly out of the country, but nobody else could get on a plane. And this conversation on Larry King’s program took place shortly before anyone knew very much about who was to blame for what had happened on 9/11.
The next day Snopes said that Michael Moore’s claim wasn’t true. So, Michael Moore used his website to say it most certainly was true. Then a few days later, Snopes deleted their comments about Michael Moore. As a result, Michael pointed out they had just deleted their own comments about him on his website. A few days later, the peeps who managed Snopes apologized on their website, and returned their original false comments about Michael to their website, highlighting their apology for being wrong about what Michael had said. And also saying that the claim Michael had made about the bin Laden family members was true.
But, what was even more important — and much worse than that — was that Google had deleted the comments that Snopes had made about Michael, as well! All of the links to their comments were gone. Their comments were nowhere to be found using a Google search. They weren’t even in Google’s famous cache!! Just like that, *snap*, both Snopes and Google rewrote history.
And they both lost any credibility they ever hoped to have in the future, in my opinion.
99thMonkey (3343 posts) (Reply to original post) March 19, 2017 at 11:22 am
24. One of the most destructive, divisive & evil memes ever
Completely non-sensical and counter-intuitive, like saying we can’t chew gum and ride a bike at the same time.
All based on looking through a very narrow lens, back into a narrow slice of time, all in order to conjure up & cast undeserved blame onto Bernie and his supporters. One of the ugliest and most tragic spectacles of the 2016 primary. ugh.
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to 99thMonkey - post #24) March 19, 2017 at 1:50 pm
25. That is what made me finally decide that the management and a lot of the
apparent “movers and shakers” there were not on the level at all.
I’d had suspicions but I’m kind of slow I guess.
Once I understood that, it changed my ideas about what was really happening at that site. They weren’t the only posters playing roles.
I expect there’s some of that going on here as well.
In my old age I find human beings are often pretending, playing roles, saying the opposite of what they actually think, etc.
Betty Karlson (3349 posts) (Reply to original post) March 19, 2017 at 2:13 pm
26. To be fair: it did have racial exceptions.
But that doesn’t mean that people of colour should be incited against a new, fair-for-ALL, New Deal.
Division: it’s all the Third Way has to offer these days.
And it is reactionary identity politics at its finest. Vomit-inducing."Someone hacks the DNC allowing all of America to see how the DNC operates as one of the most corrupt political machines in national history. Ergo, Hillary Clinton should be installed as President by judicial fiat. And if you do not agree to this scheme you deserve to be brought up on charges of treason because fascism." - NUGrrl, december 2016 “Once a person has been determined to be an UNTRUSTWORTHY LIAR, their pretend stances on important issues are simply not relevant to rational discussion.” – Ida Briggs, September 2016
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to Betty Karlson - post #26) March 19, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Betty Karlson (3349 posts) (Reply to FanBoy - post #27) March 20, 2017 at 10:11 am
29. specifically these four
The Agricultural Adjustment Act
The Social Security Act
The National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act)
The Federal Housing Act
For more information, please ignore the Bernie-smearing title of the article, and benefit from its content, so that a New New Deal will be fair for all:"Someone hacks the DNC allowing all of America to see how the DNC operates as one of the most corrupt political machines in national history. Ergo, Hillary Clinton should be installed as President by judicial fiat. And if you do not agree to this scheme you deserve to be brought up on charges of treason because fascism." - NUGrrl, december 2016 “Once a person has been determined to be an UNTRUSTWORTHY LIAR, their pretend stances on important issues are simply not relevant to rational discussion.” – Ida Briggs, September 2016
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to Betty Karlson - post #29) March 20, 2017 at 12:00 pm
30. The Agricultural Adjustment Act
The southern congressional bloc…opposed…that a portion of the payments would go directly to the displaced workers and share croppers…
- who were white as well as black
The Social Security Act
They demanded that agricultural and domestic workers be excluded from the program. At the time that impacted a large majority of black workers in the south.
- who were white as well as black
The Social Security Act of 1935 excluded from coverage about half the workers in the American economy. Among the excluded groups were agricultural and domestic workers—a large percentage of whom were African Americans. This has led some scholars to conclude that policymakers in 1935 deliberately excluded African Americans from the Social Security system because of prevailing racial biases during that period…. The author finds no evidence of any other policy motive involving racial bias.
SS began to cover farmworkers in 1950 but still doesn’t include them totally — partly as a function of employers using contract/immigrant labor and partly as a function of employer fraud (i.e. not taking out SS through various subterfuges) — but now it’s mostly immigrants/Hispanics taking the hit.
Domestic workers began to be covered in 1950, and coverage was extended in 1955.
BTW, workers in non-profits weren’t covered initially either — just one example of other categories that weren’t.
The National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act)
Again the southern congressional delegations held the bill ransom until agricultural workers were excluded…They were willing to vote for unions in northern factories as long as southern blacks were cut out of the arrangement. As the south became more industrialized during WW II they suddenly found themselves with industries that were covered under the Wagner Act.
again, not specifically race-based; blacks worked in factories before WW2, less so in the south as it was less industrialized.
The Federal Housing Act
The Federal Housing Act (is the one that’s more debatable as the “deliberate exclusion” angle because of the intersection of public and private entities involved)
In 1935, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) asked Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) to look at 239 cities and create “residential security maps” to indicate the level of security for real-estate investments in each surveyed city. The assumptions in redlining resulted in a large increase in residential racial segregation and urban decay in the United States. Urban planning historians theorize that the maps were used by private and public entities for years afterwards to deny loans to people in black communities. But, recent research has indicated that the HOLC did not redline in its own lending activities, and that the racist language reflected the bias of the private sector and experts hired to conduct the appraisals.
- again, the feds did not specifically institute race-based policy; as a matter of historical fact black citizens did in fact get federal assistance to some degree but:
The practice continues (and doesn’t only affect black folk, btw); it might be more effective to fight what’s on the ground today rather than blame the New Deal, but that’s a harder task, especially for some of the attackers, who actually have another agenda than righting past wrongs or helping minorities.
Although open redlining was made illegal in the 70s through community reinvestment legislation, the practice may have continued in less overt ways. AIDS activists allege redlining of health insurance against the LGBT community in response to the AIDS crisis.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a $200 million settlement with Associated Bank over redlining in Chicago and Milwaukee in May 2015…
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced a settlement with Evans Bank for $825,000 on September 10, 2015. An investigation had uncovered the erasure of black neighborhoods from mortgage lending maps.… Following this investigation, the Buffalo News reported that more banks could be investigated for the same reasons in the near future. The most notable examples of such DOJ and HUD settlements have focused heavily on community banks in large metropolitcan areas, but banks in other regions have been the subject of such orders as well, including First United Security Bank in Thomasville, Alabama, and Community State Bank in Saginaw, Michigan.
The United States Department of Justice announced a $33 million settlement with Hudson City Savings Bank, which services New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, on September 24, 2015. The six year DOJ investigation had proven that the company was intentionally avoiding granting mortgages to Latinos and African Americans and purposefully avoided expanding into minority-majority communities. …HCSB was forced to open branches in non-white communities. ..
Then there’s ‘reverse redlining’ —
Reverse redlining occurs when a lender or insurer particularly targets minority consumers, not to deny them loans or insurance, but to charge them more than would be charged to a similarly situated white consumer, specifically marketing the most expensive and onerous loan products. These communities had largely been ignored by most lenders just a couple of decades earlier. In the 2000s some financial institutions considered black communities as suitable for subprime mortgages. Wells Fargo partnered with churches in black communities, where the pastor would deliver “wealth building” seminars in their sermons, and the bank would make a donation to the church in return for every new mortgage application.
Which is why the black community was hardest hit by the real estate bubble. As were lower-income/poor credit borrowers in general. Predators target the weakest, not necessarily the blackest.
Betty Karlson (3349 posts) (Reply to FanBoy - post #30) March 20, 2017 at 1:58 pm
32. "… who were white as well as black" is not the whole story.
For three reasons – and not disputing the facts you mentioned – there is cause to believe these exceptions hit People of Colour harder than they hit Caucasians. And the adbsence of the line “negroes need not aply” doesn’t mean that people of colour were not specially targeted by the measures.
"Someone hacks the DNC allowing all of America to see how the DNC operates as one of the most corrupt political machines in national history. Ergo, Hillary Clinton should be installed as President by judicial fiat. And if you do not agree to this scheme you deserve to be brought up on charges of treason because fascism." - NUGrrl, december 2016 “Once a person has been determined to be an UNTRUSTWORTHY LIAR, their pretend stances on important issues are simply not relevant to rational discussion.” – Ida Briggs, September 2016
- People of Colour were overrepresented among the domestic workers and agricultural staff. The exceptions hurt communities of colour disproportionately, as they affected a majoritarily coloured workforce.
- Domestic and agricultural work was overrepresented as a source of income among communities of colour. The exceptions hurt communities of colour disproportionately, as their communities (at the time) were majoritarily dependent on these types of employment.
- Caucasians were – because of institutional racism – more likely to become employed in a different line of job. Caucasian workers in household / agricultural employment could look for whatever passed for a career change in the 1930-ies. People of Colour had virtually no alternative. (Remember that back then, even servicemen of colour were forbidden because “black men with guns are bad men”.)
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to Betty Karlson - post #32) March 21, 2017 at 12:53 am
33. I don't deny that they hit black americans harder, and that blacks were
overrepresented in some of the work initially left out. My point is that the rash of present-day revisionism is in service of an agenda — to destroy historical memory of the idea that government can serve ordinary people.
Which explains why continuing red-lining in housing, for example, has gotten nowhere near the coverage that the ‘failure’ of the New Deal has, and despite the supposed outrage over the earlier ‘failure’ we see no moves to end the present-day failure or remedy the loss of black household worth and income that’s occurred since the housing bubble popped (and during which blacks were preyed upon disproportionately as well)
It’s not quite true that servicemen of color were forbidden before WW2 either:
Twenty-five African Americans earned the Medal of Honor during the American Civil War, including seven sailors of the Union Navy, fifteen soldiers of the United States Colored Troops, and three soldiers of other Army units…
- 13 immediately post war and the rest at later dates eg ca 1900.
As the Civil War ground on and the need for manpower increased, African Americans began to be admitted into the Union Army, mainly as laborers. Large numbers of free blacks and ex-slaves were recruited for combat only after several successful experiments satisfied military leaders that black soldiers could fight in battles.
African Americans were organized in racially segregated infantry, artillery, and cavalry regiments led by white officers. The black recruits were paid $3 less per month than white privates. After participating in over 400 battles and winning 12 Congressional Medals of Honor, there was little doubt by the end of the war that the black man could fight and fight well.
After the war, Congress established several peacetime black Army regiments, again led by white officers. Assigned mainly to the West, black regiments fought Indians, manned forts, escorted wagon trains, and did other hard and thankless “bad duty” that white soldiers preferred to avoid. Experienced and battle-hardened from the Indian Wars, black soldiers saw much action in Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish-American War.
When the United States entered World War I, black volunteers flooded recruitment stations. Most of these men, however, ended up assigned to labor units. One poorly trained segregated combat division did not do well in battle. White officers often pointed to it as proof that black men did not make good soldiers. But another black division was dispersed among a number of French combat units. These American black troops, under the command of French officers, not only fought well, but participated in combat shoulder-to-shoulder for the first time with white soldiers. A major step forward for blacks in the military took place during the war when the U.S. Army set up a separate war college to train black officers to lead black troops…
Shortly before the United States became involved in World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s War Department announced a new policy expanding the role of African Americans in the Army. Blacks were to make up 10 percent of enlisted men (up from 2 percent) and were to be admitted to officer training as well as the Army Air Corps. Nevertheless, African Americans remained in racially segregated units. The Navy discouraged the recruitment of blacks and assigned most who did enlist to mess duty. The Marines barred blacks entirely…
The same article says Colin Power was in ROTC in college ca 1954 and graduated with a commission as 2nd Lt. Pretty obvious that both his schooling at CCNY and his subsequent career were courtesy of New Deal policies, the ones the people pumping the “New Deal was racist” memes are working to completely destroy as we speak.
Betty Karlson (3349 posts) (Reply to FanBoy - post #33) March 21, 2017 at 3:22 am
34. Wholehearted agreement with your last reply.
Thank you for pointing out all that.
The Crone (3078 posts) (Reply to FanBoy - post #33) March 21, 2017 at 2:39 pm
35. Excellent research and work on the posts
You have put up in this forum.
I am really really tired of id politics, especially when it is used to confound people rather than educate them."Let us not seek the Republican answer nor the Democratic answer but the right answer." John F. Kennedy America is the only country that has real lemons in its furniture polish, and artificial lemon flavoring in its lemonade!
DoctorJ (467 posts) (Reply to original post) March 20, 2017 at 5:56 am
28. Not that new. They trot it out every couple years. The Cult despise liberals
They also with increasing frequency call actual liberals racists and misogynists. It’s like they are deliberately trying to dump the elections for the next decade.The ideal CNN story is a baby down a well, while the ideal Fox story is probably a baby thrown down a well by a Muslim terrorist or an ACORN activist. - Matt Taibbi, "Insane Clown President"
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to DoctorJ - post #28) March 21, 2017 at 5:13 pm
36. It's part of the same rewriting of history that writes out the New Deal as a
progressive force and relabels it a racist force.
I predict the new thing will be to have the bottom 80% embroiled in race war while those at the top bemoan the bestiality of the savages, white and otherwise.
Just like they push it overseas. Remember how in Yugoslavia and elsewhere the party line was “undying ethnic hatreds” that somehow diminished under Tito but then reemerged after the breakup of the USSR, more virulent than ever?
With a little help…
Happening all over, those “ancient” ethnic hatreds reemerging…
With a little help from our ‘friends’.
Mnpaul (1116 posts) (Reply to original post) March 21, 2017 at 7:48 pm
38. Racism is a tool they use to get elected
they don’t really care about minorities. They are the ugliest racists of them all.If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything - Hamilton
FanBoy (7985 posts) (Reply to Mnpaul - post #38) March 21, 2017 at 8:28 pm
40. yes. or rather, dividing people by race is a tool they use to get someone
elected — in this case, it got the pubs elected.
but always someone controlled by the ptb.
DoctorJ (467 posts) (Reply to original post) March 23, 2017 at 6:55 am
41. BTW thanks for posting Jacobin
I stumbled on it recently and it’s a relief to find an unashamed left-wing magazine that doesn’t rehash the same laments that we’ve been hearing for the last 15 years.The ideal CNN story is a baby down a well, while the ideal Fox story is probably a baby thrown down a well by a Muslim terrorist or an ACORN activist. - Matt Taibbi, "Insane Clown President"