Select Page

William Dawson and the creation of the economic plantation

William Dawson and the creation of the economic plantation

This is another in a series of Black History Month commentaries offered as part of an oft requested dialogue on race.  It deals with facts, events and perspectives that Democrats and the political left strive to keep out of their version of a “dialogue.” 

There are many politicians who contributed to the plight of Black Americans for the 160 years since the end of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.  One man, however, stands out for being the most significant architect of the de facto racist system that has maintained racial segregation and oppression by supplanting constitutional rights with welfare dependency.  

While the modern American people are not a racist culture, the last vestige of institutional de facto racism still exists.  It is easy to find.  One merely has to look at where Black Americans are still segregated into communities in which there is a lack of quality education, jobs, safe housing, poor healthcare, public safety, well maintained streets and parks, effective police enforcement and public mobility.  In place of those, there is a high rate of generational welfare dependency that traps millions of Black citizens on a barely survivable economic plantation. 

That describes the historic conditions in America’s major cities – virtually all of which are –and have been – in the virtually exclusive one-party control of the Democratic Party for generations.  It explains why virtually all the major race-based protests, demonstrations and riots have occurred in those same cities – triggered by the oppressive effects of systemic or institutional de facto racist policies and practices.

To see the genesis of urban institutional racism, one needs to look to Chicago in the 1930s – and a man named William Dawson.  He played a major role in enslaving millions of Black folks over several generations in segregated impoverished welfare-dependent communities – the economic plantations, as they are appropriately dubbed.

Here is the excerpt from the book.

The Chicago Machine and William Dawson

It was in Chicago that the Latin term de facto was first routinely applied as a modifier in describing a special form of institutional racism.  De facto racism has been more enduring because it is not as obvious as the de jure segregation of the solid Democrat South.  It is not as easily addressed by the courts.

The Chicago Democrats did not invent the votes-for-benefits concept.  That was already the modus operandi of New York’s Tammany Hall since the Eighteenth Century.  The difference was that the Tammany organization, and its imitators, used privately sourced rewards in return for votes, such things as food, coal and, of course, money.  It also might include jobs, obtaining building permits or “fixing” traffic citations.  The Chicago model shifted the “bribes” to taxpayer financed benefits.

The strategy to control the vote through welfare did not occur organically by cultural evolution.  It was a scheme perfected and implemented by the Chicago Democrat Machine.  It was the cynical genius of a man named William Dawson.

Dawson began his political career as a Black Republican in 1930, just as Blacks were switching over to the Democratic Party.  He was elected alderman from Chicago’s Second Ward in 1932 – a ward with a large Black population. 

At the time, the white Democrat Committeeman of the Second Ward was Joseph Kittinger.  Following the Democrat’s older strategy, Kittinger doled out jobs and favors to the Ward’s white minority – basically ignoring or discouraging the Negro vote.  The Black community, however, was gaining in numbers and influence, and they demanded that Chicago Mayor Ed Kelly remove Kittinger for a Black ward boss.  Which he did.

In Kittinger’s place, Kelly persuaded Republican Dawson to switch parties in return for controlling patronage in the Second Ward.  As the new ward boss, Dawson developed an ingenious means to control the Negro vote in the all-Black segregated communities.  He literally abandoned the fight for constitutionally grounded civil rights for a new faux “civil right” – access and dependency on welfare.

While Negroes gave Roosevelt overwhelming support in 1932, that loyalty seemed to be weakening in the late 1930s.  As late as 1939, the allegiance of the Black vote to the Democratic Party was still fragile and the Republican Party was gaining as a competitive political force.   The majority of Blacks were registered as Republicans until 1948.

The Black Sub-Machine

Dawson’s influence grew beyond the Second Ward.  He became the go-to man for Chicago’s entire Black population.  He was the boss of what some called “the sub-machine.”  An online website associated with Chicago public television station WTTW stated:

Dawson proved adept at organizing the increasing number of Black Democrats on the South Side and soon consolidated his political power. He effectively used patronage and precinct workers to develop a strong voting bloc that generally gave local, state, and national Democratic candidates impressive majority votes. Dawson would eventually control as many as five wards, forming the city’s first Black political machine.

Based on his rhetoric more than his actions, Dawson became a hero to the Black community.  Like the house slaves of the early Nineteenth Century, however, Dawson’s loyalty was to the white Democrat bosses in City Hall.

According to Christopher Manning in “William L. Dawson and the Limits of Black Electoral Leadership.”

“Dawson was also leader of the African American ‘sub-machine’ within the Cook County Democratic Organization. In the predominantly African American wards, Dawson was able to act as his own political boss, handing out patronage and punishing rivals just as leaders of the larger machine, such as Richard J. Daley, did. However, Dawson’s machine had to continually support the regular machine in order to retain its own clout.

He chose to work on city politics from this stance, rather than to conduct open civil rights challenges, and did not support the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in the 1960s.”

By 1957, Black leaders, such as Martin Luther King, were pushing back against both de jure racism in the South and the de facto racism in the major cities.  With more aggressive civil rights activism on the rise, The Chicago Defender, a Black publication, said that Dawson as a civil rights leader was “non-committal, evasive, and seldom takes an outspoken stand on anything.”

The Dawson Strategy Goes National

Dawson’s welfare-for-votes was so effective in recruiting and retaining Blacks for the Democratic Party in Chicago that he attracted national attention, including the eye of the President.  FDR saw the value in the Dawson welfare-for-votes strategy. 

Dawson was elected to Congress and was named Assistant Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.  His specific responsibility at the DNC was to spread the welfare-for-votes concept to Black voters in other cities.

Black leaders, like Dawson, became part of the established Democrat political machine.  In New York City’s Harlem, Congressmen William Clayton Powell took on the Dawson role under Big Jim Pemberton.  The importance of Dawson, Pemberton and Powell to the Democratic Party was chronicled in a major feature article in Life Magazine in 1944.

(End of excerpt)

As has been the case in the past, the current Black History Month fails to cover all the historical facts of Black history in America –especially the post-Civil War history, which is skewed by political bias in academia, entertainment and the news media.  Much of history recounts the horrors of racial oppression without identifying who was, and is, responsible for the conditions under which millions of Black folks live today.  It is not a natural outcome.  The conditions of life in America’s segregated cities are not the result of Black character traits – as some contend.  It is the willful maintenance of institutionalized oppression for political benefit.

Democrats – for obvious reasons – and the left in general do not want a dialogue on race that covers ALL the facts.  They want only a propagandized version of Black history. 

As I have said in the past, Black History Month should be cut back to two weeks, because the American people – Black and White – are only getting half the historic story.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry 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.

16 Comments

  1. FRANK STETSON

    Horist lives in the past, recycles lifelong political grievances, aged historical spins, and leaky logic to convince you of one thing: Democrats bad. His goal is not truth, but to win. He does not want to learn, he has to win. He rolls his Dawson lament yearly. I have refuted it easily in the past. He’s trapped in his political past, the 60’s, and he can’t move forward. He can’t examine his own old, tired, ideas that don’t even make pragmatic sense today.

    There is no doubt that Dawson reflected the patronage practices of the time in Horist’s old Chicago right back on the whites that invented them. Did he do that because he was a racist? No. Did he do it to retain and expand power: yes. Is he the father of the modern welfare system. No. Did he take part. Yes. Many Senators did.

    Otto von Bismarck is credited with creating the first modern welfare system. I think he’s white.

    In the early 1930’s, the US had no national welfare system thanks to Republicans. FDR, a Democrat, created Social Security and other social insurance programs of The New Deal error. Horist called them racist against blacks and now says they created modern slavery for blacks. The welfare state, IMO, begins in the 70’s and ENDS in the 90’s with Bill Clinton. Wake up and smell the coffee Horist.

    Horist seems to feel welfare = slavery. This is a racist view that those taking welfare are slaves. In converse, racists like to believe slavery = welfare in that slaves were better off, taken care of because they were incapable of taking care of themselves. Horist makes the same conclusion that blacks are content to live as slaves to the dole.

    Problem is, statistically, it just ain’t so. Legally, it is impossible except for a few special cases determined by the State, not the Fed and certainly not Chicago. Clinton put time limits in place in 1996 making the Horist story moot. He is a Democrat.
    First, thanks to Bill, a Democrat, you can only be in welfare bondage for five years. David Bowie has a nice song about that called Five Years :>). “My brain hurts a lot” when I read Horist :>)

    Yes, States can make some exceptions and time-limit exemptions for special problems. That’s why it’s called TANF – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The Horist theory seems moot. Archaic. Out of date. Old.

    On average, about 50% leave in a year, 70% by two, and 90% in five. Horist is pursuing a ten percent problem.

    Second, SNAP or food stamps. Three months’ time limit, can be offered once every three years. Ditto on the moot to the Horist spew.

    Thrid, the demographics of Horist’s defacto racism indicate 63% of food stamp recipients are white, 28% black. Who’s the slave now Horist? For TANF, it was about even between black and white. Somehow, Dawson found a way to enslave whites too. Facts are our friends, they tell the truth. Horist spins it.

    Sorry, Horist, Democrats solved your issue in the 90’s. Today the issue is not trapping people in a welfare state, the problem is creating opportunities for them to escape poverty. But you can’t think positively when you have your Democratic hate cap on. Can you? Can you wake up and just smell the coffee. It’s 2024.

    Raising the minimum wage would help. But you don’t like that, right? One we agree on is that education funding helps trap these folks by providing lower quality educational outcomes. That’s based on funding, which is based on local taxes, which is a death spiral for these folks. Guess who stands against any attempt to rectify that? Republicans.

    Blacks are also discriminated against for jobs, wages, etc. etc. Do you blame the Democrats for all the discrimination still present in the US? Do you want the links for wage discrimination against blacks in Republican strongholds? Or job discrimination against blacks in Republican strongholds?

    Here’s one for wage discrimination in Venice, Florida, a Republican stronghold — *https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-race-discrimination-case-against-florida-city-securing-195000-lost* There’s dozens of these for Florida alone. No Dawson mentioned. Ever. It’s easy to find the real causes holding blacks down, Mr. Horist. And Dawson ain’t mentioned.

    Feel free to continue to mistake the present with your aged past. But until you have a good idea, this is just hate based on misinformation and archaic stereotypes. Hatred of all things Democrat whether true today or just true yesterday, but not today.

    BUSTED: by definition it is technically very hard to become a black slave to welfare. Most recipients are white anyways. They can always eat watermelon and chicken to give Horist a laugh….. No, not trapped in the past, not him (sarcasm alert)

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … It is Black HISTORY month, you moron. The commentary is about … black HISTORY. You mistake living in it with knowing it — which you obviously do not. Not sure about all the bs you said about me and the facts since I only did a quick perusal. But got the gist. It is all about moi — as usual. Same old obsessed Little Frankie — having a debate with your mental playmate, the bad Larry Horist of your imagination. You are truly pathetic.

      • Frank stetson

        Way to discuss the issues. NOT.

        Let’s get personal.

        Horist says he thinks Stetson is a moron, obsessed, and pathetic.

        And he didn’t even read the piece.

        He wins again!

        Or is it whines?

      • Tom

        Larry, Frank is stating facts about the system. I have been involved with some of these benefits for my clients in the past. You are the one who makes the institutionally racist comment about Black folks opting for the “economic plantation” and “vote-for-benefits” schemes. And I explain this in my comment.

        Frank is only defending Black integrity by stating the facts about the benefits you speak of. So his comments are directly relevant since you opened the door with your “Blacks vote-for-benefits” assertion. Isn’t defending Black voter integrity and busting your myth of “Blacks vote-for-benefits” a legitimate topic for discussion during Black History Month!?? You seem to not see this. And then you disparage him with names and other insults. Do you see a pattern in your behavior towards dissent Larry???

    • Tom

      Frank, very good commentary. Thank you for reminding us of the truth about system benefits. Thankyou for defending the integrity of the Black voter in Black History Month.

      • FRANK STETSON

        Aw shucks Tom, yours too. I learned much about Black political party migration, and your biden film clip review was spot on.

        You’ve been really on fire recently, I love it.

        Looks like the three musketeers are each seeing the same thing with different eyes. And then there’s Horist who sees something completely different. At least he’s got the balls to enter the discussion. Dempsey, Alice, Bill, Machinehead, —- everyone else but Gilbertson —- they can’t do what Horist can.

        Thanks for the support, I hope Horist thinks about it and takes it to heart and changes. He is still the best here. And he is the only one with a glimmer of reality allowing him to see that on his side of the fence, it’s not all fucking a skippy. He can decide to have a dialog or a series of duologs and might even see this as an opportunity.

        Who else might actaully say, today, they have active, reoccuring, frequent discussion with liberals, and Tom :>) and both parties are civil and even respect each other. Real discussions. Deep conversations. It could happen and then PBP would be different. He’s got to get back to modeling Reagan, not Trump. Krauthammer, not Carlson. and so on and so on.

        In his blind kvetch-ed-ness, Horist misses how often he hits the mark. How often he gets us to learn something and change. Yeah, liberals and indies. I gave him much credit on the “dem city systemically racist on purpose and it stops at the city line” rap in that I learned systemic racism does exist in our cities and the NE, go figure, is some of the worst. He mentions education and I researched and if you are like me, you follow the money to see this is fucked from the funding get-go as suburbia and rural america shit on the kids in the city like greedy vultures picking the bones. I think he’s really onto a problem. Just don’t agree with his blame and really don’t have answers for fixing. But Horist showed me something there. And he does that more than once, more than one issue. Ruined my day by illuminating me to the racist Democratic Presidents and while I am not quite thinking FDR is Hitler, as I think he might, I do see their racist choices, or to my thinking —– wimping out on taking the proper stand for whatever reasons.

        But if he continues to roll out ideas without supporting evidence, ideas that are obvioulsy illogical, he’s got to know he will be measured, he will be weighed, he will be fact checked, and if he comes up wanting, he will know it. And if his response is more name calling, most often he will show himself for that.

        Enough —- let’s discuss the issues of the day.

        HEY LARRY —– love ya big guy, Good luck.

        • Tom

          Yes Frank, I think Larry often has many good points. And I agree with you that Larry needs to get back to Reagan and Krauthammer. This devotion to Trump and the conservative cause is blinding him to and causing him to write false statements and racially inflammatory statements. The sad part is, as in the case of many Trump supporters, he cannot step back and see it. But he does this in a sneaky way so that he can plausibly deny it. But he knows he is doing it, and he has lost his mental filter to leave these comments out or to restructure them to be positive. His addition of the watermelon comment after the chicken comment shows this. Had he not made the watermelon comment I would not have said anything. And in this article he is basically saying Black voters were for sale, or opted to switch for handouts, without ever mentioning the punishing poverty they were suffering under 2 decades of GOP rule. Both of these examples show that Larry has lost the ability to discriminate and see that he is making statements about a whole class of people and labeling them by food type and voter-for-benefits which lacks any context as to why they voted that way. I will agree with Larry that he is not an in your face overt racist. I even said so. But I disagree with Larry in that he makes statements about Black People that were popular when I was a teenager – which gets to your point about Larry living in the past. So to me, Larry has a thread of “covert institutional racism” which shows in some of his statements. And that he makes these statements on Black History month to me is amazing. And the fact that Larry has an editor who reads his stuff before publishing and allow these statements through says it is institutional. If I had been his editor I would not have let these statements through. And I would have done a quick fact check as well as bugging him to discuss both sides of the complex issue.

          I agree with your statement that Larry often misses the times he is spot on. I have often said when I agree with him and complimented him. I never see responses to these comments. And I agree with you in that his articles are evocative and help us all come to a greater awareness. Like you, I hope that Larry will begin to see our comments as constructive and maybe change just a little. And really, I am talking about fact checking himself more, and put back in that filter that screens for institutional legacy bias.

          Larry sees himself as being victimized. And Larry sees any dissenting or simply alternative opinion as his attackers just like Trump. I have no interest in attacking Larry but I will counter-attack when being attacked. I have every interest in providing context and the other side of the issue when he does not do this. In the case of this article, I could have written this article in a way that favors the GOP but provides the history. In this way, we all learn and benefit from one another’s research! You and I have both benefited from each other’s research, and we both have benefited from some of Larry’s insights. And I hope he will begin to see things in this light. That is why I have decided to implement my STS-Rating System and simply tell the other side where I have good background, statistics, and/or history. In this way, I provide his readers with value.

  2. Tom

    This Article Rating STS-4 (Stop The Slant Rating, 0 = Truthful, 5 = many lies and slants)

    I gave this article a STS-4 rating because Larry’s facts on Dawson’s switch and involvement seem correct but his implication of vote-for-benefits as being the reason blacks switched is incorrect. Black voter incentive to switch was caused be 1) Continuing GOP racist business as usual policies gave them no hope, 2) GOP policies kept Black voters in severe poverty and without jobs. Democrats simply showed “concern” for the Black voter. See below for elaborations. 3) INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN THE ARTICLE – T article is lumping black voters into a group that stereotypes Black voter motivations as “voting for benefits” and cheapens their intelligence by implying they can be bought for cheap and do not have minds, preferences, and the cognitive ability to discern the issues and vote responsibly for their race’s success in the USA!!!

    I have written about this before. Larry attempts to blame all of the problems of African American Chicagoan’s on the Dem party. Not true!

    WHAT LARRY IS NOT TELLING THE READER:

    1) The fact is that from 1907 to 1931, the Republican Party won the majority of Chicago Mayoral contests. Black population in Chicago was subjected to crushing poverty during this time. The GOP governed as :business as usual, all for corporations, not for Blacks. Black voters were very tired of this racist approach. The Dem party showed concern for the Black plight. And so the switch began. It started around 1931. The largest switch occurred in the 1960 throughout the entire USA. .

    2) ALL of the conditions Larry mentioned (lack of quality education, jobs, safe housing, poor healthcare, public safety, well maintained streets and parks, effective police enforcement and public mobility. ) ALL EXISTED UNDER THE GOP! GOP did nothing about it from 1907 to 1931 (when they got the Black boot) because it was business as usual, as long as corporations are doing well Black voters did not matter.

    3) Larry says, “The strategy to control the vote through welfare did not occur organically by cultural evolution. It was a scheme perfected and implemented by the Chicago Democrat Machine. It was the cynical genius of a man named William Dawson. THE TRUTH: This is from Larry’s book. Historians have written against Larry’s theory. Historians view is that there was no organized strategy. Read the last paragraph here at *https://www.jstor.org/stable/1904208*

    4) Consider the fact that if Larry is correct? If there was a documented strategy to lure Black voters to vote Democratic using Welfare, and that the evil Dem scheme Larry describes was successful as he claims, the only reason such a scheme could hatch and be successful in 1931 when Black voters were overwhelmingly GOP, is that it had a fertile environment to do so. And that fertile environment is actually owned by the GOP!!! So what Larry is saying is that the give away Dawson flower of “Economic Plantations and “vote-for-benefits” stated in Larry’s article was allowed to grow because it was planted in the GOP soil of racism and severe poverty!!! (Now that is some high quality shit bro!!!)

    5) Larry says nothing about the Black voter big jump to the Dem party in the 1960’s that is largely attributed to a fellow that Larry probably admired named Barry Goldwater! Goldwater can be seen as the godfather (or maybe the midwife) of the current Tea Party. He wanted the federal government out of the states’ business. He believed the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, and that means the end of the Welfare lifeline for black voters. So not only was the GOP the soil that allowed the vote-for-benefits flower to grow in the early 1930, also in the 1960’s the GOP flung GOP Goldwater dung on the flower to make it grow better!!! (But hey, lets just blame the Dems again!!!)

    NOW THE READER HAS THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

    Larry, what were the black voters supposed to do? Stay true to the GOP and starve to death???!!!

    Larry, the Black voter shift in the 1930 and bigger shift in the 1960’s is actually a testimony to the Black Voter’s intelligence, will to survive, and desire to eat!!!!

    • Tom

      I forgot to list one of my sources. For a good read, see *https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/07/14/331298996/why-did-black-voters-flee-the-republican-party-in-the-1960s*

      • FRANK STETSON

        Tom, I checked and using Stop The Slant may not fly in certain demographics. My woke bible, page 3,229, second paragraph, questions whether Asians will appreciate your terminology. Eyes captain, eyes. The abbreviation STS means Science and Technology Studies which again, could get you in trouble with Asians. Not to worry though, if you insult them, they tned to forget it about an hour later. But better check to see that the cat is OK……

        (the preceeding paragraph is racist, and I apologize. I just added it to show Horist an example of what he did. Just not funny. It’s racist and we are done with those stupid jokes about stupid stereotypes by people being stupid. Hope it helps)

        • Tom

          Yes we all need to be on our guard for deeply ingrained thought patterns that got into us in the 1950’s through 1980’s. To me its a form of institutional racism because many of these racist thoughts were institutionalized. Most of us have these thoughts deep in us somewhere. Most of us are not the in your face, overt, racists which is what Larry claims he is not. And I agree with him on this. These dormant racist thoughts sometimes surface in the form of printed language, the way we construct sentences and string paragraphs together, and in the way we do not present both sides of an issue. This is what Larry did, and may not have realized he was doing it. This is why I call it “covert racism”.

          In the Biden commercial example, he mentioned the boys ordering chicken in one paragraph which was fine. But then he followed it up with what he thought was an amusing little anecdote in the following paragraph using watermelon. Larry may not have realized how doing this can cause those old dormant “chicken and watermelon cliches” that we learned in the 1950’s to 1960’s to activate in his reader’s minds. And in so doing, he stereotyped all Black people. And then his comment back to me was that he is not racist, his black friends say he is not racist, and that I need to get a sense of humor!!!

          In the Dawson piece he notes “economic plantations” and “vote-for-benefits”. So now we have the pictures of “blacks picking cotton” and “immoral black beggers lined up at the polls for their handout”. And again, he did not qualify anything so it lumps all Black people into this collection of stereotype images. More appropriate than economic plantation would have been “economic trap”. Picturing Black people as most being trapped in an economic and education system that kept them steeped in massive crushing poverty would have been a much more accurate reason for switching parties. Saying or even asserting that they switched parties for benefits without stating the reason just cheapened the whole Black race. And since he is publishing this article in Black History Month and assuming the mantra as one who knows history (including referencing his book) it would have been much better to be more historically accurate by mentioning that the GOP was dominant from 1907 to 1931 and did nothing about that horrible racially tilted GOP landscape that kept the Black population in such crushing poverty for decades. And the GOP intended to keep it that way as they catered to the corporate world. The only thing the Dem party did was show Black people that they understood their dilemma, were sympathetic to it, and were going to try to do something about it. So if anything, the Black population showed they were intelligent and discerning by switching parties!! The historical records which I have investigated overwhelmingly show this is the reason why Black people switched parties. Larry is working off of an old myth and thought pattern that has been debunked by many historians. Hence, your comment regarding Larry’s writing as “living in the past” is accurate.

          I thought the piece Larry wrote yesterday on “Which President Putin Would Like the Most” was rather balanced and informative. It was a good piece, and Larry showed that he can look at both sides when he wants to. I would have complimented him on this article but it did not seem to allow comments. Were you able to comment on this piece???

          I will work on that “Stop the Slant” issue. Maybe it got by me because my wife is from China. I have lots of friends on both sides of the Pacific pond. How about “Stop The Twist”?

          • larry Horist

            Tom … You did not call it such, but you seem to be alluding to the latest leftwing academic fad called microaggression. It operatives on the theory that all white folks are racist by nature. Even when we believe we are NOT racists (as I believe of myself) we are racists. The racism supposedly exists beyond our conscious mind — so we cannot deny it even in ourselves. There are several levels of microaggression. in the worst case — for example — something I say to a Black that I do not believe is racist and that the Black person does not see as racist is still racist by the judgement of a microaggression believer. That is ivy covered nonsense. I put that in the same category when the political progressives and academicians embraced phrenology, etc. Microaggression fails the test since it is theory that needs no proof to be considered valid by the believes. When I tell you that I do not harbor even a scintilla of racism in my mind and heart, that is a FACT. Now I know you may not believe me because you seem to believe in the microaggression. Therefore you are likely to see racism where it does not exist. And that is a problem in our society. Contrary to your thinking, I believe that the vast majority of folks are not racists –and I have written on that point. Keep in mind, microaggression is something you can believe but never know — can never prove the theory. I know I know myself better than you do. I know the reality. You only have an unprovable theory.

  3. fRANK STETSON

    Geeez, Tom, I was just kidding….. Although I was watching a Blue Bloods rerun, I like to count how many times Frank, Danny, and even Jamie, on occasion, knowingly break the law. But it’s OK, they’re the good guys. But in this one, Asian woman getting the bump, old-time white guy launches discrimination lawsuit. At one point, the women rips out all sorts of derrogatory names she has heard and like Preggo says: it’s in there. Oh yeah, many Asians do not like that word. Go with Spin. Safer. That’s the best part about bad words. So many others to choose from, why get prissy about it.

    To me, PC, woke, whatever —- is mostly about just being polite and following the best 11 words ever spoken: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Pretty much toss the rest if you live this one. So, if “a spade is a spade,” which I love and link to bridge, others link to something else, there is no honest answer, but certainly not black, then I couid easily push back on this one: tecnically, historically, basically — scientifically. But who cares, I just stopped saying it. I mean who even plays bridge anymore? And I play, but I don’t even like it. As Horist laments, I use too many words anyways. I don’t tell WV jokes anymore from living in MD, I don’t tell Canadian jokes from living near Buffalo, and they are really funny. Good Polish jokes up there too and they were all Poles. I never could get that one. I put away the stars and bars, although I still like the rebel spirit, determination, and damn it, those plucky hairy underdogs almost pulled it off. And almost ended my wife’s existance before she existed. And I still admire that they almost beat the odds. It’s easy to give this stuff up, does not diminish your manliness, and it seems polite not to offend even if I think they are as emotionally dainty as Horist is.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have insulted folks accidentily on three continents, and even Canada. That’s hard to do, to. I am a brash uncouth NJ cowboy American and I just let er rip as I see them. I have also learned to apologize, take it to heart, and change. And there’s Horist’s rub. You and I brought it forward as a potential weakness in his story, no one screamed racist. He pushed back and called us names in defense. You added the watermelon mistake, upped the ante, and he pushed back. You then nailed his coffin with the tape review. And he still pushed back. It was not the saying, it was the defending. As if his standing firm on chicken and watermelon for blacks is funny was more important than all those people who would feel demeaned by that crap. Even more critical to be sensitive given our history of doing it and THEIR history of living at the short end of that stick. And he still does not admit his part in that. That’s a sin. One might say hubris.

    FYI: Horist has banned free speech on a few threads. No comments allowed. I am sure he will tell us it’s a technical problem that’s out of his hands. Republicans are like that :>) Wink-wink, nudge-nudge. I vote it’s Italian satellites eating your words before they hit the internet. I was thankful. As Horist says, I am here too much lately. But tax season is wrapping up, my quarterlies are done, my yearly budge update is done, and based on that —- my semi-quarterly update is now done too. Pretty good all round but got murdered in taxes (by Trump no less), I spent too much fixing the place up last year, but amazingly, am making money still and place to reach an all time high pretty soon. So, with that, and Spring coming, I hope to get away from the pc in general, and hope you will too (although I think you are ahead of me). Besides, picking off this low hanging fruit is getting too easy and now that you and Mike are stepping up the pace —- I need a break.

    Although tommorrow may be rainy……….

    • Tom

      Yes you are correct Frank, its hard to tell a good joke these days without offending someone. That is why I rarely tell jokes anymore. Being of Polish decent, I can tell you when the Polish jokes started. In WWII, 9/1939 when Nazi tanks rolled into Poland, the Poles did not have tanks. They did not focus on upgrading their military. So all they could do is use what they had to battle the tanks, and that was horses and swords. They actually charged the tanks with horses and swords, sticking their long swords down the air holes in the tanks and killing the crew. Everyone back then thought it was crazy to charge a tank with a horse, some thought it stupid. Few considered it simple bravery and courage. And the modern day Polish jokes began. Again, sad thing is that had the Poles not immigrated in mass to the Northeast where you live, this country would have struggled to develop since it was the Poles and the Irish that dug out most of that coal for the power plants and suffered the minor’s lung death. Nobody thinks about this when they tell Polish jokes. My father was born three months after our family immigrated to PA based on a one sheet flyer that said to come to the USA for a better jobs, higher pay, better working conditions. Then when they got here they were sent to the “Anthracite Vein” up around Minorsville, PA. Well long story short, that immigrant kid that was born in 1922 became a lead navigator in the Mighty 8th Army Aircorps and won the distinguised flying cross 7 times kicking Nazi ass in 30 missions.

      Excellent summary of Larry’s rub. Great statement that it wasn’t the saying it, it was the defending it. That was what really got me. He basically said that because I did not laugh at it and instead called it out, I must be the problem. And then he did basically the same insensitivity in his Dawson piece, characterizing Black folks at “vote-for-benefits” and totally ignoring the all important “Why would they do that” question and providing background context. It could have been a great story. And again, he still does not see his problem? Instead he calls names and labels us as the problem. And then he tried to sell your one comment detailing the benefits as not appropriate for Black history month – heck I thought it was very appropriate because Larry stated that Black people became voters-for-benefits! I was glad to read your detailed listing! I have much personal experience with many of those benefits, as I helped several of my health care clients fill out those forms! I thought your comment was excellent!

      Yeah I was wondering about why we could not comment on that Putin’s Favorite President piece. I thought he did a good job on that one. I was going to send him a compliment! Like you said earlier, “Larry misses when he does good” (paraphrased). Not sure why he felt he did not want comments on that one. I have noticed several times I could not write a comment. Your input is interesting. I was wondering why I could not comment.

      Who did you think was “Putin’s Favorite POTUS?”

      Yes I have plenty to get onto between taxes, visa changes for the wife, getting my big outdoor vegetable garden ready for planting, and doing some house upgrades too! Never a dull moment. So you will not see me as much either but I will look for you! Yeah, Trump did not design his tax breaks for you and I. IT was more of a corporate give away. Sort of a thank you note that our children get to pay for.

      • Tom

        And now it is funny yet sad that he practices nepotism by putting family in charge of the RNC. And they want the RNC to pay for Trump’s legal fees. WOW! That takes real balls! I wonder what Larry thinks about this development?

      • larry Horist

        Tom … I believe I have said this before. I have no … none … zero … control over the comments. When there is an inability to add comments, it is a glitch in the system — not intentional. I do not do that .. and the owner never does that. I do not want you getting paranoid. LOL