Slavery

Snake6 wrote: Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory. Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins.

The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out.

Jim Paint wrote: Zesty They argue that until 40ish years ago, everything was still very racist.  Which it was.  So the slaves/sharecroppers came to the cities on the ticket of some program, that I cant remember the name of now.  (I.)  They are stuck in a vicious cycle and can not leave the city cause the white mans holding them down.  Theyre friends/parents make fun of them when they try to succeed. (II.)  But now that racism is virtually (at least legally) gone, the people should rise out of the ghettos, get an education, and make something of themselves, instead of living off the government. I.  <---This is what I see Clark/dune/whales opinion as.  If I am wrong, please correct me.

I actually agree with points I AND II both.  I agree that with the legal obstacles out of the way, that eventually things will even out again, and that the formerly oppressed should work hard towards that goal.

BUT - the direct effects of formerly legalized racism linger, and have left a very serious mark on the young generations of today.  You can't just declare racism gone with an act of Congress.  It will take generations for it to go away (if ever - witness anti-Semitism after all these years).

So to say we "fixed" racism in 1964 is too simplistic, just like it is too simplistic to say that "oe noez, t3h Man is keeping me down".  Both are too extreme, and both are incorrect.

First (IMO), we need to acknowledge the following points:

1.  The effects of legal racism remain.

2.  There remains actual racism today, both intentional and unintentional.

3.  Both of those truths place an unfair disadvantage on black Americans, entirely due to their race.

4.  Our ultimate goal is a meritocracy (to a large extent, anyway) regardless of race.

Only when we recognize those truths can we decide the best way to address the situation.

Affirmative action is one possible solution, but there are certainly others, and AA obviously has its drawbacks.  Simply ignoring the issue and letting time solve it is also a possible solution, although we would have to sacrifice several generations of American blacks in the process.  Presumably there are other solutions that I can't think of at the moment.

Jim wrote: have no idea how much welfare pays, or any such programs. Or if people are turned off on jobs because they could get the same amount staying at home and living off the system. To me it seems that we need a program that wil help pay for housing for people attempting to leave the city, so that they can use the job money for food,vehicle, etc.

The principal "welfare" in the country is AFDC - Aid for Families with Dependant Children.  It gives money to mothers/parents with minor children, so that the children don't starve.  Unemployment isn't as big of an issue (but certainly not a small issue), because of the qualification procedure (you must have had a job to begin with that you lost).

AFDC gives you $$ and foodstamps.  More children = more money.  If the custodial parent(s) has a job, then that is offset against the welfare.

So it encourages mothers to have lots of kids and to NOT marry - if they marry a guy with a job, then the husband's money reduces the welfare.

It also makes it very difficult for the single mother to work.  When she gets a job, she now needs daycare for the children, and her welfare has been reduced because of her job.  AFDC can also provide some daycare benefits, but there is a large spot in the middle (where most poor uneducated mothers are) where it essentially would be really stupid of them to get a job.  So the system self-perpetuates.

Hades wrote: I would have to look up the numbers but I am willing to bet that the War on Terror is 100 times the strain on the US budget than all welfare/goverment assistance programs combined.

Yes and no - matter of definition.  The defense budget is the largest of the "discretionary" budget.  But Social Security and Medicare are by far the largest item of the non-discretionary budget.  AFDC is partially state and partially federal money.

The real question is whether SS, Medicare, AFDC, etc. ADDS to the economy or DETRACTS from the economy.

Jim Paint wrote: Roll Tide wrote: Snake6 wrote: Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory. Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins. The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out. We learned about it.  Grant didn't like burning all the farms and such, but if he didn't the money would fund the south. And if the south IS all about just being independent, why did Lee take the offensive and march north?  He may have been able to just defend the south, instead of trying to conquer the north.

It wasn't Grant as much as Sherman. Sherman burned everything.

And it's a strategy, Hit them before they hit you. I'm not saying it's right, but that's what they did.

Jim Paint wrote: Roll Tide wrote: Snake6 wrote: Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory. Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins. The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out. We learned about it.  Grant didn't like burning all the farms and such, but if he didn't the money would fund the south. And if the south IS all about just being independent, why did Lee take the offensive and march north?  He may have been able to just defend the south, instead of trying to conquer the north.

Lee did not make the diescion to attack north, that was Davis. The march north is what screwed the CSA over, the idea behind it was to demoralize the population of the north and turn public opinion against the war. It didnt work.