Select Page

Is segregation racism? Apparently it depends

Is segregation racism? Apparently it depends

That seems to be a very easy question to answer – but in the modern “woke” world of left-wing extremism, not so.  It depends on who is imposing the segregation.

We can see that virtually all of the major cities ruled over by longstanding one-party Democrat political machines are segregated – with iconic large, impoverished communities of blacks and Hispanics that are deprived of quality education, employment, good housing, safe streets, and upward mobility.  We are talking about neighborhoods with social and political borders – with school systems that in many cases (New York for one) are more segregated than they were in the infamous 1960s.

And yet, those on the left bristle every time I describe our major cities as segregated. They deny the obvious racism of the Democrat political bosses, who have maintained that urban reality since former slaves started moving to northern cities.  It is maintained even when those political machines have titular black mayors.  In many cases, black leadership has been no different than the black slave owners in the old south.  They gained their power, prestige, and profit by maintaining and gaming the established racist segregation system.

Mayors come and go, but the system and conditions remain the same.  Baltimore is as segregated as it was more than half a century ago – and still bares the scars of the 1960s riots.  Recent black mayors have run the same racist drill as did Nancy Pelosi’s father and brother when they served as Baltimore’s mayors. In case you did not know that.)

While the current situation in the cities are the pernicious residual of black migration out of the dangerous solid Democrat post-Civil War southland, those trekking north did not find the tolerance and jobs they had hoped for.  Democrats in the northern cities were not a lot more enlightened or tolerant than their colleagues in the south.

There is, however, a different sort of segregation that is being promoted on the left – a segregation that is seen as woke.  This is where blacks – with the approval of establishment whites – are creating new venues of racist segregation.  It is a form of self-segregation in which non-African folks are barred from participation.   In many cases, “blacks only” signs have taken the place of “whites only of yesteryear.”

Harvard University has provided one of the latest examples with a “blacks only” graduation ceremony.  It was not an “official” graduation ceremony but was “accommodated” by the school.  In my view, that is just wrong.  A prestigious institution like Harvard should be breaking down race-based barriers in the spirit that all people matter.  Instead, Harvard has succumbed to woke tribalism.

This is part of a campus trend that has blacks creating black only clubs and “safe spaces.”   They allege that such segregation allows blacks to deal with uniquely black issues.  But the issues are not uniquely black.  Is there something “unique” about a Harvard diploma?  Do blacks get a different one than whites because they are educated differently?

There are appropriate times for folks to celebrate their ethnicity.  I grew up in a city that had seemingly endless ethnic events, but I cannot think of a single one that banned folks who were not of that ethnicity.  In fact, they were wonderful occasions for sharing.

For many years, blacks were barred from events, clubs, and restaurants.  We condemned it and mostly ended it as being racist – contrary to the American promise of human equality.  It is beyond my understanding why creating an alternative universe with similar characteristics should be considered as a good thing.

I happen to be a melting pot assimilation guy – not only in geography but in personal relationships.  Nothing gives me more confidence in the future of America than seeing interracial interaction – and a growing number of interracial couples and families – like my own.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry HoristLarry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

28 Comments

  1. nic bargo

    DO YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST LOVES YOU AND HE DIED FOR OUR SINS?

    Reply
  2. richard NORDSTROM

    Larry,
    The self-perpetuating problems of the inner cities will never change until minorities vote out their oppressors. Lyndon Johnson was essentially a “drug dealer” who hooked minorities on welfare (just enough to keep them voting Democratic for the next 200 years), and inner city mayors prey on the vulnerable making an industry out of perceived racism that they keep stoking to keep their pockets lined. I graduated from Hope College in the early 70’s when they tried to “integrate” minorities into the college from Brewton, AL. It was a disaster. Why? They wanted to “segregate” themselves and did nothing to become a part of the community. My fraternity even tried to organize a concert with them to bring on campus one of the Motown Groups and they told us to go to hell. As long as leaders perpetuate stereotypes, nothing will change. For the most part, Americans are not racist, our so-called leaders are. “Woke” is killing our culture, along with CRT, Transgenderism, and all of the radical progressive secular agenda that divides all people by race and ideology. This secular religion is destroying the nation. As a Pastor preached at least 30 years ago in a sermon, “If God does not destroy America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

    Reply
  3. Tom

    Very interesting topic that in many ways has become the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. I have a couple of experiences in this area. I used to think segregation was racist but now I am not sure. I spent several years as a middle school math teacher. At pep rallies and general school assemblies we tried to get Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics to sit together and mingle. Perhaps this was an early “woke” experiment. Well, the students (age 11 through 14) did not like it and it made them feel very uncomfortable. One day we decided not to require them to sit together and to see what they would do. As you might predict, they all sat with their ethnic peers. It was then that I realized that there is this thing I just call “natural segregation” which is people just wanting to mingle and associate with people that look like themselves. I do not think this is racist.

    In a second example I worked for AT&T. The company allowed our Black engineers and management workers to form a group called “Black Telecommunications Workers of America”. The purpose of the group was to advance Black workers and promote their advancement in management. Whites were allowed to attend the meetings, and I did. I found much of what they were doing applicable to all races. But they would not advocate for you if you were White. As a white person, I and other white engineers asked our management if we could form a “White Telecommunications Workers of America” group to promote our advancement in management. We were told absolutely not, that it would be racist.

    Later I did some adjunct teaching at a local community college. I was shocked at the number of Black students advocating for a Black only campus. I asked them why they wanted to take society back 50 years to the segregation era? Why did they want to do something that flies directly in the face of Martin Luther King’s dream of a society judged by the content of an individual’s character rather than by the color of their skin? I explained how hard our generation worked to get rid of our segregationist thinking and make a more inclusive society. I never got any answers save one, a student that told me privately that Black people do not trust White people. I acknowledged his answer and that there was past history that supported their feelings but how can we change that if both sides don’t equally step out of the past and into a new era. To my dismay, I was surprised how many Black youths were in favor of segregation – but they want it on their terms. Yet they would not acknowledge that White segregation (where Whites get to do the same thing as the Black do) is not racist.

    And there are other examples from the 1990’s such as at A&T University (promoted as a Black University) a White person could get a minority scholarship to attend college there. But if you are White, do not expect to make very many friends there. You were generally frowned upon and not well socialized.

    So where I finally ended up was thinking there are two different forms of segregation: 1) Natural segregation, and 2) Legally forced segregation. I am not sure that either is healthy for the making of what Lincoln called “A more perfect union”? Your thoughts? And a final thought, desegregation laws seem to fly in the face of natural segregation and seems to create more ill feelings than it solves. Your thoughts?

    Reply
    • Kawika56

      TOM — Some of their Grandparents fought and DIED for desegregation, now just two generations later… “I’m Back!” Thanks to the DemonRat Party, who caused the Segregation in the first place!

      Reply
      • Tom

        Yes, I agree that it is back. I cannot say what the assignable cause is but there do seem to be threads to the Democratic Party that seem to be entwined with the notion of victimization, and that the only way not to be a victim is vote Democratic. I have several very good black friend whom all votes Democratic. What I have noticed when we talk is that they are not as up on the facts as I thought they might be. Blacks have historically done better (household income – not give aways) under GOP regimes. Yet the perception is that Democrats are better for them. Hispanics were somewhat similar in perception but they have gotten “woke” by all of the problems with immigration and now that they have businesses and decent jobs, they are beginning to see the GOP point of view. This was obvious in Texas, and in voter registrations countrywide. But blacks seem to stick to what is called “perception politics”, and often, these perceptions are shared in churches by their ministers and congregations whom get it from the Al Sharptons and other more famous Black figures. It is also interesting to note that when I point out the statistics to my Black friends, they struggle to believe them and seem to feel that they are White statistics skewed to trick Black people.

        Reply
  4. MikefromTexas

    I agree with you Tom as I saw that in the army as I did my 20 years. Not all but for the most yes. No the blacks want their own space to eat, sleep and study in schools. Shame.

    Reply
  5. Kawika56

    One of those Black African Native Tribes that captured, and sold other Black African Natives into SLAVERY, were the Ashanti Tribe, whose Royal Kente cloth garb Nancy Pelosi and company wore, while they ‘took a knee’.
    …and these fools are wearing too!

    Reply
    • Tom

      Yes this is an interesting point. The slave triangle (England to Africa to Americas) could never had sustained itself without Black people (tribal) support. It is a well known fact that at that time in history (1600-1700s), White people could not go into the African interior due to not having the necessary immunity to survive the naturally occurring diseases there. So there was a need to have Black indigenous people bring the black potential slaves to the coast for exchange. In many cases, it was black tribes warring on other black tribes to get prisoners to take to the coast. This is how Black people participated in the enslavement of their own people. They essentially are “Slavery Roots Deniers” and remarkably, exhibit the same denielism attributes as election deniers of today. So I conclude that denial ism is not a racial nor political concept. It seems to be more of an ego-centric concept so as to allow the denial to occur in order to avoid the painful realities. By being an Independent/Unaffiliated voter, I enjoy the benefits of avoiding the painful realities that both parties feel.

      Reply
  6. frank stetson

    Give it a rest. It’s the law of supply and demand. The only reason there was slavery is that we demanded it. There is no sale unless someone is buying.

    Everything starts with the root cause. Everything is because of the root cause.

    Americans began to control more of the value chain immediately by breeding slaves, like cattle, to remove all the black sellers that you mentioned.

    You can’t shovel off responsibility by saying other people helped. We are the root cause.

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … and Republicans were the historic solution. The abolitionists were not buying slaves or slavery. It was not Americans who were breed slaves when the issue divided the nation, It was Democrats. Slavery and more than 100 years of institutional racism is on your side of the political divide. The American people — Republican, Democrat and independents — are not racists as populations. But institutional racism is still part of the Democrat urban DNA. Hopefully, the last vestiges.

      Reply
    • Tom

      Actually Frank, if you want to go to the roots of slavery, it started in New Amsterdam, a.k.a now New York in the very early 1700’s. Until 1710 or so, white and black farmers did their farming on farms side by side of eachother. Around 1705 – 1710, when white farmers wanted access to and control of more land, they devised a scheme to label black farmers lower than human based on their color. By 1725, Blacks were no longer allowed to own land in New Amsterdam and what they owned was confiscated by sham trials. Slavery then spread to other areas when White people started realizing that they could lord over Black people and have a basically free form of labor. It was after this that the breeding you mentioned began and was in full swing by 1833, and then in 1808 came Thomas Jefferson whom stated, “Slavery is the fire bell in the night.”

      But my point is that there are two sides of every equation. In this case, you reference “Demand” but negate to mention “Supply” other than in your opening statement naming the equation. A search of history will yield a number of African kings and merchants took part in the trading of enslaved people from 1440 to about 1833 in what was known as the “Slave Triangle”. Hence the supply of slaves from African interior to US shores continued until 1833. It was in the Slavery Abolition Act, (1833), in British history, act of Parliament that abolished slavery in most British colonies, freeing more than 800,000 enslaved Africans in the Caribbean and South Africa as well as a small number in Canada. This ended the US supply from England which were the major but not only suppliers. Dutch were involved as well but English had the market fairly cornered. Then the breeding went on steroids.

      My point is the same point as today with cocaine. And your point is the same as today with cocaine. And I think we can agree that a disruption in either side of the equation would shut the equation down either because of no supply, or, no demand. Therefore I award both of us equal points!

      Reply
      • Frank stetson

        Ever notice how “actually” disguises “you’re fuckin wrong.” 🙂

        Point taken. Chicken n egg. But still say it starts with demand. No one’s gonna pack up a bunch of humans unless the market exists.

        And the dehumanizing part is about rationalizing your inhumanity by convincing yourself they are less than human so it’s a good thing. Helps with control too. And then it gets imbedding in our very DNA because we made it. “natural.”.

        Hey, there’s even white slaves in America. Indentured servants. Pretty sure my wife’s family did that when natives roamed the Hudson.

        Still sticking with its all our fault, no one elses.

        Reply
        • larry Horist

          Frank Stetson …. Not my fault. My ancestors were in slave-free Europe during the days of slavery. And even if YOUR ancestors were culpable, I do not put that on you. Of course, I have some Nigerian DNA … so according to your theory, YOU owe ME reparations.

          Reply
          • frank stetson

            Thanks Larry and the check is in the mail :>)

            My “ancestors” were in slave-free Europe too; in racist countries…. My wife has a few on the Mayflower, but they were Northern Democrats fighting for the North to end the Southern Democrat Confederacy which later became Republicans who are not all racists, yet, most modern racists vote Republican.

            It is good that you call out the Confederacy as being racist. I guess you support pulling down all those Southern Democrat statues honoring racists as well. Bully for you, I hope.

            And no, you don’t owe my family payment for what they did to allow you to come here as a free man from Nigeria.

            But we all are Americans and we all own the American experience and history. You can not opt out, nor can I. We all own our history no matter when we got here. And no one is blamed for the sins of our fathers, nor those who were here before us. But we could attempt to understand the root causes and do something about it.

            You feel the root cause of current systemic racism is Democrats. Often you just say it’s all racism. That’s really totally wrong. I guess your cure is vote Republican. Since you missed the root cause, good luck with your solution.

            I feel the root cause of current systemic racism are certain laws, programs, and policies. Larry has not identified any but I agree they are there. Once Larry id’s said laws, programs, and policies, he can then determine who wrote them, voted for them, etc. if he really is ultra interested in assigning blame. I believe he will find both party’s took part over the years. I believe he will find it’s much more than just Democratic cities. It’s counties, states, national, and by dems and repubs alike.

            And then we can see what Larry, and others, suggest as solutions.

            I am so happy that you got woke.

      • larry Horist

        Tom … for the record. Slaves were first brought to what is not America in the mid-1500s by the Spanish. They had set up shop in what is now the Carolinas. The first colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts.. Although Britain did not allow slavery, the British commercial fleets were essential to the transportation to the Caribbean. Cuba was a major center of slave trade. At some point, American ships were not allowed to carry slaves — even as slavery flourished in the South. Native Americans were also put into slavery. A bod developed between them and African blacks. Native Americans often assisted run-away slaves. It is also the reason many black Americans have Native American ancestry.

        With the collapse of the Whigs — who had anti- and pro-slavery factions based on geography, the division between north free states and southern slave states came into sharp focus — with Republicans on the side of abolition and Democrats defending slavery. The sides were fixed with the election of Lincoln. He beat several regional candidates. Southern states began seceding right after the election — and before Lincoln’s inauguration. In terms of slavery, there was virtually no middle ground. From that point on … the Democratic Party owned slavery and the more than 100 years of racial segregation and terrorism. Yes, there are people who are racists … and groups. But they do not represent the masses. the only INSTITUTIONAL RACISM to be found in America is in the cities that have been ruled over for generations by one-party Democrat political machines.

        Reply
  7. frank stetson

    I think Larry has outlined a very interesting result of “systemic racism.” It’s just too bad that it all turns to shit when he concludes it’s all about the Democrats. That’s like me saying Larry is part of the new American slave owning class. He doesn’t buy them, he adopts.
    That’s just ridiculous. So is blaming it all on Democrats.

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … You are very funny. I give you cities totally controlled by Democrats in which tens of millions of blacks are segregated into communities charactered by poverty, high unemployment, poor education, unsafe house, crumbling infrastructure, unsafe streets, police racism, ,prosecutor racism, court racism that locks of blacks disproportionately … and you give me claims of voter suppression in red states in which blacks are voting in record numbers — actually outvoting white. You are correct in that your analogy is “ridiculous.” But so his your entire comment, What has turned to shit is your brain.

      Reply
    • Tom

      I do not know much about whether or not slavery’s assignable cause is the Democratic Party. I can tell you that six southern states back in time before the civil war (or War of Northern Aggression) actually had slavery in their state constitution and a sanctioned institution. And before the Civil War, there were no Red States and Blue States, they were called Free States and Slave States. And perhaps a reason slavery is more relegated to the Democratic party is because this party began in 1828 primarily built by Martin Van Buren whom was known to have owned at least one slave and often hired out slave and free African Americans. Whereas the GOP was not started until 1854 when the moral issue of slavery was a hotbed topic, kitchen table talk. The GOP was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists who opposed the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories. Hence Larry may be eluding to the fact that the Democratic Party did have slave owner members whereas the GOP party was a banning together of anti-slavery activists whom did not own any slaves.

      Now to your comment’s credit, It is False that the often eluded to Ku Klux Klan as having been formed by the Democratic Party, actually was not.

      THE FACTS: The Klan first emerged after the Civil War in an effort to intimidate Southern blacks to stay out of politics and to exploit their labor. It was created in Pulaski, Tennessee, by Confederate veterans: Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe. Mark Pitcavage, senior fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, told The Associated Press that it was originally designed “purely for entertainment, with no political motivations.”

      Pitcavage said members engaged in social antics that grew to incorporate cruel pranks. The Klan gradually took on a political tone and by 1867 it began engaging in violent acts. According to Pitcavage, many KKK members were Democrats since the Whig Party had died out and white Southerners disliked the Republican party. He says, though, that the Klan was not started by the Democratic Party “ nor did it have ideological motives until later.”

      So I am awarding Larry 8 points and you are awarded 2 points.

      Reply
      • larry Horist

        Topm … just to add a point or two. Republicans controlled the south during Reconstruction with a military presence. Initially, the KKK and other groups were a ragtag group. During that time, blacks became members of Congress and Senators …. governors … and other offices. It was the Compromise of 1877 that changed everything. In return for awarding Electoral Votes to Republican Hayes a deal was struck to remove the troops from the old confederacy. That is when the Democrats used violence and force to take over the South — and when the KKK, the Red Shirts, the White Citizen Councils, the Knights of the White Camelia, etc. became the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party.

        Reply
        • Tom

          Good addition, I agree Larry. Also during this period from Civil War end to about 1910, Blacks had much more participation in Congress but they were slowly stripped of their successes. I have read that it was in the neighborhood of 25% congressional participation. And also by 1910 there were at least 710 memorial statues to Confederates located all over the south. This grew to over 1500 between 1910 and 1960 which to many analysts seem to be a response to Blacks wishing to have back their civil rights and equal participation in government. One of the players in the growth of Confederate memorials were a group called “Daughters of the Confederacy”, of which, one of my favorites, Mary Tyler Moore was a member. I wonder if Dick Van Dyke ever knew!

          Reply
          • larry Horist

            Tom … As you not, many of the statues honoring Confederate military and political leaders went up in the 1960s as part of the Resistance Movement against school desegregation. That is also true of the addition of the Confederate battle flags to the state flags. The post Civil War black Republicans in Congress were out as of the early 1900s. The last was a Congressman from Chicago.

  8. Frank stetson

    They were democrats , that’s for sure

    But they were Southern Democrats and that was always a big difference from a northern Democrat.

    And today they are Republicans.

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson …. Again, you do not know your history. The National Democratic Party has always looked the other way in terms of institutional racism. Kennedy never supported or passed civil rights legislation, He proposed it during campaigns and then had his bill buried in committees headed by racist Democrats. To his credit, Johnson did support civil rights after the assassination … but only with the support of the Republicans. Throughout the last half of the 20th century, the national Democrats turned a blind eye to the racism in Chicago and other Dem cities. Study MLK’s march in Chicago. No … there was not a big difference between northern and southern Democrats. Chicago was declared to be the most racist city in America. Racial unrest was common in Dem cities … and still is. Just answer two questions .. where does most violence against blacks occur? Who is in charge? You should be able to attach those two dots.

      Reply
  9. frank stetson

    I would love to discuss and learn more about systemic racism. I think Larry is really on to something here; too bad he just wants you to conclude: VOTE REPUBLICAN as the cure. Since that’s not the problem, that’s not the solution either. I would really love to understand the causes of systemic racism, the laws, the programs, whatever. Larry really does not get to that level of detail. He just stays at 30,000 feet blaming Democrats for all of it.

    Larry concludes: “We can see that virtually all of the major cities ruled over by longstanding one-party Democrat political machines are segregated.” Yes, most cities are led by Democrats, but Republicans are not invisible. More important, there are a number of major Republican cities with the same problems for the same reasons. States too. Larry has never shown differently.

    “In many cases, black leadership has been no different than the black slave owners in the old south.” That’s a pretty bold claim without evidence. Not many dare to compare blacks to crackers.

    “This is where blacks – with the approval of establishment whites – are creating new venues of racist segregation. It is a form of self-segregation in which non-African folks are barred from participation. In many cases, “blacks only” signs have taken the place of “whites only of yesteryear.””……..”This is part of a campus trend that has blacks creating black only clubs and “safe spaces.” On this one Larry does have a point. However, my point is after a few hundred years of slavery and overt racism, give it a rest and leave it alone. There are plenty of restricted clubs based on gender, religion, etc. There are five national white-only associations. They have tax waivers…. Just let it be, it’s not harming anything.

    In college I took “racism through films” as a gut course in that I love movies. It was me, five members of the girl’s lacrosse team, and 295 blacks. Was it segregated? By Larry’s definition, yes. We had a ball; everyone was very nice. ;>) But we did sit together, in the back and I made no friends :~) We did move to the middle over time though. Better view of the screen.

    I also took “women in society” for the same reason and to meet girls. I was the only male. Was it segregated? By Larry’s definition yes. They were angry, mean, and bitter. It was not fun for me at all, nor did I learn much. So angry…. Like Larry. Angry girls. (just kidding Larry, you are swell, but actually, sounding a little bitter in your rage against losing the midterms… :>)

    Larry, my Irish side came over in 1866. Landing in Philadelphia, they went to the Conshohocken mills just up the river. They lived on Whiskey Lane as the indigenous peoples called it because that’s where it was comfortable for his family to live. Whiskey Lane,” “Cork Row,” “Irishtown,” and “Connaughtown,” there were a lot of Irish obviously. Yeah, he had to move his six-month-old daughter to Whiskey Lane. Worse yet, they were shunned as Catholics which is really funny because that and an unplanned pregnancy is a good reason why they came here. Storefronts posted “HELP Wanted, Irish need not apply.” He worked as a stock puddler, most died by 35 years from the fumes. Like most immigrants, and like Blacks in the North after The Great Migration, they CHOSE to live where it is most comfortable, amongst people who look, sound, and even smell like them.

    Their kids ALL went to school, got jobs for the railroad as baggage handlers, station managers, even an engineer. There were a lot of them, a real lot of them, and they all worked the trains for a few generations. At one point they put a sign in the station window: “HELP wanted, Irish can apply, O’Stetsons preferred.” And the American story moves on.

    One main difference is the assimilation periods between whites and blacks is the the length of time we pick on those with differences. Often the only reason for extended assimilation lengths of time is identification. My American first generation was Irish, acted it, looked it, and sounded like it. The next generation could easily blend with the indigenous peoples and the following generation even married them. Same happened in 1912 with my Slavic side in Scranton mining coal. Even though they looked and sounder like the old SNL “cheeseburger, cheeseburger, no coke, pepsi” skits, they assimilated even faster since they had many young kids they brought with who picked up the language in school fast. Everyone picks on the newbie, the outsider, those who are different in any way. My immigrants could read, write, their kids went to school for more education and they were poor but had some money right from the start. Blacks have a much harder road to assimilation and blending in, that’s one huge difference. Identification is easier so blending is harder. They also started broke, unable to read and write, chances are the first freed slaves’ kids did not go to school. They didn’t even speak like the indigenous people who could probably understand my Irish and Slavic sides easier. I respect that it’s a much harder row for Black to hoe to assimilate after 1865, to the current day. I don’t begrudge some extra sensitivity and extra support for that. There’s a lot of Americans who hate blacks for being black. Until that is in the noise, I don’t mind bending a bit.

    But I certainly wouldn’t blame it solely on the Republicans. Not even Trump :>) This is an American thing, yourself included, where we feel everyone MUST assimilate and we show disdain for different languages, dress, customs. How often have you heard “well, they ought to speak English if they want to be American.” Why” Think about it, why? The answer is that systemicracism is our custom and we haven’t changed it yet, even today. Both Party’s. All Americans.

    I agree that there is systemic racism, some of which probably causes minorities to be clustered, or segregated. But rather than blame, I would love to determine what laws, policies, and programs cause it. I really think Larry is on to something here if he can just let go of his political bias bitterness and focus on actual root cause, not party affiliations.

    Reply
    • Tom

      Frank, I have similar family history, only we came from Poland and Austria, and were enticed by one page leaflets advertising a better life in the USA/America. When we came, we were sent to the coal mines in Ashland, not far from Scranton where the coal ran like a river that they called the “Mammoth Vein”. I hope you have taken the time to visit the Coal Minor’s museum up there. My grandfather was a blaster. If you want to look at systemic racism, look at the Fair Housing Act history in the 1950-1970’s. Blacks almost never could buy homes which is a major long term financial investment. In addition, whites were only given FHA loans when the house they wished to buy did not border a Black area. Read this Forbes article at https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2019/05/16/the-shocking-truth-about-the-u-s-black-homeownership-rate-50-years-after-the-1968-fair-housing-act/?sh=f2c7ef63ba65 But there was much discrimination against Chinese as well. After they bled and died building the railroad from coast to coast, in 1879 we kicked them all out of the country and did not allow any more in under what was called “The Chinese Exclusion Act”. I think much of this act traces back to GOP POTUS Arthur, GOP officials and constituents who wanted the jobs and wealth created by the railroad to go for Whites. Chinese lived in horrible shanty conditions usually at the bottom of hills and valleys where it was often wet and dingy. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 banned Chinese laborers from entering the U.S. Chinese immigrants already in America were kept from becoming citizens. Read more here: https://www.historycentral.com/Industrialage/ChineseTreaty.html, and at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act and here https://www.history.com/news/transcontinental-railroad-chinese-immigrants, and don’t miss this YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8jazexfZh8

      Reply
      • larry Horist

        Tom … we may be cousins. My paternal side is Austrian and my maternal side is Polish. Grandma Sikorski was a cousin of General Sikorski — who was the Eisenhower of Poland and would have been President had not the Russians assassinated him in a plane crash. My Austrian ancestors arrived around the turn of the century. My dad was born here in 1909. My Polish ancestors a bit earlier — in the mid 1880s. My great-grandfather Joe Sikorski was a Chicago tailor to the rich and powerful. He is said to have had the first police escorted citizen funeral in Chicago — and was the person behind the cliché, “Joe the Tailor.” At least it was a Chicago cliché. Though we were rather poor, we did dine on some of the best Polish and Austrian food in the world, The only connection to slavery was my grandmas slaving over a hot stove,…lol.

        Reply
    • Tom

      My other comment is in moderation probably because I provided links for you to read. So here is the non-link version.

      Frank, I have similar family history, only we came from Poland and Austria, and were enticed by one page leaflets advertising a better life in the USA/America. When we came, we were sent to the coal mines in Ashland, PA, not far from Scranton where the coal ran like a river that they called the “Mammoth Vein”. I hope you have taken the time to visit the Coal Minor’s museum up there. My grandfather was a blaster. If you want to look at systemic racism, look (google) at the Fair Housing Act history in the 1950-1970’s. Blacks almost never could buy homes which is a major long term financial investment and gateway to middle class life. In addition, whites were only given FHA loans when the house they wished to buy did not border a Black area. Read this Forbes article on this. Also, I think VA home loans had similar restrictions. But there was much discrimination against Chinese as well. After they bled and died building the railroad from coast to coast, in 1879 we kicked them all out of the country and did not allow any more in under what was called “The Chinese Exclusion Act”. I think much of this act traces back to GOP POTUS Arthur, GOP officials and constituents who wanted the jobs and wealth created by the railroad to go for Whites. Chinese lived in horrible shanty conditions usually at the bottom of hills and valleys where it was often wet and dingy, and they worked the most dangerous jobs, while payed half as much as Irish railroad workers, and did much more dangerous work than the Irish. They seemed to be viewed as much more expendible. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 banned Chinese laborers from entering the U.S. Chinese immigrants already in America were kept from becoming citizens. There is a great article you can google on Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 on History Central dot com, and about the Chinese building the Transcontinental RR – Chinese immigrants, at History dot com, and , and don’t miss this YouTube video about working conditions for Chinese building the railroad that is on YouTube at F8jazexfZh8. Our American history is loaded with discrimination of Blacks, Jews, Chinese and Asians, hell, anyone that is not White and Christian!

      Reply
    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson …. I forgive you in view of your admission that you do now know how systemic racism works, Segregation has been maintained by red lining — by which blacks could purchase property outside the segregated borders. While officially, the practice has been outlawed, it is still operational by wink and nod. School districts are crafted to keep the schools segregated. That is still true today in most major Democrat cities. That is why New York schools, for example , are more segregated today than they were in the 1960s. Government eservices are lacking in the segregated communities — with streets, parks, sidewalks, water and sewage systems in poorer condition. Housing laws are not enforced, so slumlords can houses and two-flats into multi-family tenements illegally. Highrise public house in interesting because the construction was racist and so was the elimination. As the black community started to put pressure on the segregated foundries and expand into white neighborhoods, the answer was high-rise public housing. On a footprint that accommodated a few hundred blacks in individual homes, the high-rise tenements could accommodate tens of thousands in the same space. But when the population (voters) grew and could threaten the bosses in city hall, Mayor daily tore down the high-rises without adequate house alternative in Chicago — forcing the residents into impoverished all-black suburbs of Robbins, Markham, etc. It was referred to as the ethnic cleansing of Chicago. I could go on and on of how institutional racism operates the Democrat controlled cities. You will not find this sort of segregation and racism in Republican controlled cities.

      Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *