Republican coon Byron Donalds says Black people were better off during Jim Crow

[xxxbishopxxx]

Stop and frisk caused several people to die by the police. I won’t name names out of respect

But stop and frisk definitely caused me emotional harm when I saw the affects it had on my people.

The numbers were there.

So I will be the bigger and stronger man and say I don’t support stop and frisk just like I didn’t and don’t support the Joe crime bill.

U support both apparently

You talk about the crime bill more than stop and frisk. Stop and frisk was around before the crime bill from my understanding. I never said anything positive about it, so not sure why you say I was for it.

Everybody has said the crime bill sucked, inspite of its good intentions. To be clear, I just don't like people yelling crime bill and not knowing or pretending to not know why it came into existence in the first place.

As to your other post, ask the tangibles crew how they feel about that. They clown anybody that suggests we can easily slip back into the Jim Crow era. I was never one of those people.

 

[shaddyvillethug]

You talk about the crime bill more than stop and frisk. Stop and frisk was around before the crime bill from my understanding. I never said anything positive about it, so not sure why you say I was for it.

Everybody has said the crime bill sucked, inspite of its good intentions. To be clear, I just don't like people yelling crime bill and not knowing or pretending to not know why it came into existence in the first place.

As to your other post, ask the tangibles crew how they feel about that. They clown anybody that suggests we can easily slip back into the Jim Crow era. I was never one of those people.

No vote no tangibles vs vote or die

 

[Big Tex]

I agree with that CNN Title. Statistically, Black Family unit were better under the Jim Crow era. That is fact, you can not like the taste of it, but it reality. That's not saying Jim Crow was a good thing or Jim Crow is responsible for that fact. It's simply using the Jim Crow era as a timeline. Focus! Itr's saying that in the years of Jim Crow compared to now. black families were stronger. Anyone that doesn't understand this is being disingenuous to support a political point. If anyone on this board tells me the black family unit (man in the household and leading) and mother taking her appropriate role and kids paying attention wasn't stronger between 1877-196 vs now, im calling you a liar

If the family unit you described is so desirable, why did so many people abandon it when they were no longer forced into it?

You're pining for the good ol days where Jim Crow made it necessary for people to be in that structure to survive.

 

[yureeka9]

Show me were he said that blacks was better under Jim crow ur such a bot he said there was alot of black family in that Era

Just stop. Are you really going to split hairs over a black man that IMPLIED black people were better off under Jim Crown to a white audience at a trump campaign event? He didn't have to say one word. His presence there alone is unacceptable. So let's say I'm wrong about what he said. My initial comment is still very much valid.

 

[HeathCliff]

Like clockwork..

These threads tend to bring out the "civicly" ignorant bunch who tend to "both siderize" the topic instead of staying on it.

#YaHaT3taSEEit

 

[praetor]

He's a "black" republican who is in bed with people who want to make America great again. What YEAR do you think they think America was great? Lmao!

He shitted on policies adopted by presidents that had huge black support. He's straight up saying that black people don't know how to vote for their own best interests.

You know what else black families had during Jim Crow? A black woman. Lmao! Something his family is missing.

 

[ghoststrike]

"You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together."

 

[totto]

"You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together."

He looks like the brothers at the cigar lounge on friday nights...

pure grift but he does have a small point, America isn't sustainable for the higher expectations that young people have, eventually it's all crash down.

 

[ghoststrike]

He looks like the brothers at the cigar lounge on friday nights...

pure grift but he does have a small point, America isn't sustainable for the higher expectations that young people have, eventually it's all crash down.

It's from the Cognac and Cigars at The Cigar Code in Philadelphia, where Byron Donalds made that statement. He has NO point.

LITERAL head pats and remaining on the Trumps VP shortlist is why he says what he says during this election year and why he was voted in by majority White Pro-MAGA voters of his FL district.

 

[T_Holmes]

I agree with that CNN Title. Statistically, Black Family unit were better under the Jim Crow era. That is fact, you can not like the taste of it, but it reality. That's not saying Jim Crow was a good thing or Jim Crow is responsible for that fact. It's simply using the Jim Crow era as a timeline. Focus! Itr's saying that in the years of Jim Crow compared to now. black families were stronger. Anyone that doesn't understand this is being disingenuous to support a political point. If anyone on this board tells me the black family unit (man in the household and leading) and mother taking her appropriate role and kids paying attention wasn't stronger between 1877-196 vs now, im calling you a liar

If he only wanted to highlight the time frame in years, he could have done that.

He said Jim Crow for a reason, and it's not because everyone there knew the historical timeline by that reference.

But hey, I'll do you one better. I don't give an actual shit if the "black family unit" was bigger, stronger, more conservative(?) or what the fuck ever during that time period. Shit was bad for black people, and it didn't get much better when that period "ended". There were just laws that sorta protected us after the fact (and sometimes didn't even do that).

Any time a black person says something that supports the bullshit metric that black people "had it better" or "owe a debt of gratitude" to the cruelty and intolerance of white people, it just feeds into the ass backwards belief system that so many racist and/or otherwise ignorant people lean into. Entertaining that shit is toxic and a bad idea.

And what is his point? If it was "we need to focus on family unity", then say that shit, and leave the Jim Crow era bullshit to yourself. I'm not going to be impressed by someone who is too fucking stupid to properly convey a basic to an audience. Not that I think his audience was black people, which is part of the problem to begin with.

 

[DC_Dude]

If he only wanted to highlight the time frame in years, he could have done that.

He said Jim Crow for a reason, and it's not because everyone there knew the historical timeline by that reference.

But hey, I'll do you one better. I don't give an actual shit if the "black family unit" was bigger, stronger, more conservative(?) or what the fuck ever during that time period. Shit was bad for black people, and it didn't get much better when that period "ended". There were just laws that sorta protected us after the fact (and sometimes didn't even do that).

Any time a black person says something that supports the bullshit metric that black people "had it better" or "owe a debt of gratitude" to the cruelty and intolerance of white people, it just feeds into the ass backwards belief system that so many racist and/or otherwise ignorant people lean into. Entertaining that shit is toxic and a bad idea.

And what is his point? If it was "we need to focus on family unity", then say that shit, and leave the Jim Crow era bullshit to yourself. I'm not going to be impressed by someone who is too fucking stupid to properly convey a basic to an audience. Not that I think his audience was black people, which is part of the problem to begin with.

Exactly! Say the time frame vs. Jim Crow

I still haven't seen any data though for him to make such claims????

 

[totto]

It's from the Cognac and Cigars at The Cigar Code in Philadelphia, where Byron Donalds made that statement. He has NO point.

LITERAL head pats and remaining on the Trumps VP shortlist is why he says what he says during this election year and why he was voted in by majority White Pro-MAGA voters of his FL district.

No

I'm saying the point is that America isn't sustainable with how many younger people think, simply put.. the bag can't be had by everyone, someone gotta be poor that's just the reality.

Byron and all these black conservative bring up family for a reason, family is where historically a man is content with or without.

The mindset that folks have is the bag and that isn't realistic for the majority, America is a business, as we are now we are a service economy.

Eventually it's going to come to a end, the bag won't be in America anymore and people will leave, that is a strong GOP point which is completely true, our military budget exceeds most countries total budget for a reason.

regardless of jim crow or whatever racism that took place, the point is solid, under jim crow we were forced, without a choice it wasn't right but it created more structure whether you agree or not.

 

[geechiedan]

I agree with that CNN Title. Statistically, Black Family unit were better under the Jim Crow era. That is fact, you can not like the taste of it, but it reality. That's not saying Jim Crow was a good thing or Jim Crow is responsible for that fact. It's simply using the Jim Crow era as a timeline. Focus! Itr's saying that in the years of Jim Crow compared to now. black families were stronger. Anyone that doesn't understand this is being disingenuous to support a political point. If anyone on this board tells me the black family unit (man in the household and leading) and mother taking her appropriate role and kids paying attention wasn't stronger between 1877-196 vs now, im calling you a liar

ok now lets keep it 100%...this is gonna get real gritty so don't get mad at me.

In order to understand why his point has little meaning you have to understand how american society has effected both the black man AND woman but especially the black woman. The reality is the horrors that happened to black men in that era happened to black women too. The big difference is black woman STILL had to deal with gender bias on top of it.

“I have certainly met much more discrimination in terms of being a woman than being black, in the field of politics.”
- Shirley Chisholm speaking to her experience on running for President

Welfare was created during the great depression and was created for white widows and white orphaned children. So you have a program that was designed for people to get thru rough circumstances that blacks were excluded from for decades. You couple that with low employment opportunities and general racial animosity and violence...what do you think is going to happen when welfare was extended to blacks in the 60s?

Couple that with changes in social mores and the stigma attached to divorce no longer being a barrier.. of course marriage stats would take a hit.

But heres the REAL reality...many men VOLUNTARILY left either from the pressure and frustration of not being able to properly support their family or shame at not being the man they and others expected them to be. Whats NOT being discussed is what those factors were.

 

[geechiedan]

No

I'm saying the point is that America isn't sustainable with how many younger people think, simply put.. the bag can't be had by everyone, someone gotta be poor that's just the reality.

Byron and all these black conservative bring up family for a reason, family is where historically a man is content with or without.

The mindset that folks have is the bag and that isn't realistic for the majority, America is a business, as we are now we are a service economy.

Eventually it's going to come to a end, the bag won't be in America anymore and people will leave, that is a strong GOP point which is completely true, our military budget exceeds most countries total budget for a reason.

regardless of jim crow or whatever racism that took place, the point is solid, under jim crow we were forced, without a choice it wasn't right but it created more structure whether you agree or not.

Having the highest rate of marriage means little when he cant feed his family or protect them or pass wealth accumulated by home ownership to his kids. Oops thats right,,,he couldnt own a home and dang sure not one were he wanted to live. Or he is humiliated on a daily basis in front of his family. Like you can't look a white person in the eyes or you can be called boy by any white person while you MUST extend respect to them. An emasculated man in the house isnt much better than no man in the house....its a distinction without much of a difference.

 

[SPECTRE1]

There is a mass shooting near a HBCU instead of lynchings, are we going to blame these segregated schools for that?

Attaching lynchings to segregation because some fool wanted to stroll around with a Becky is a lie. Jim Crow were laws to establish segregation that's it.

Hollywood started this nonsense in their movies like Mississippi Burning, activist fighting for voting and it is fable that exist today.

Some of you want to be around whites at all costs, sacrificing us to do it. You see their shiny possession/women and start coveting it badly. Some of them will desperately come at me.

 

[SPECTRE1]

List of Jim Crow law examples by state - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The big thing is miscegenation laws that even States like Ohio had. Don't let these Civil Rights scamster trick you into getting rid of miscegenation laws so they can be with a white women claiming it was tied to lynchings.

Jim Crow ended these bed wenches ran to the Supreme Court to be with their white man.

This is @Camille in 1967.

 

[geechiedan]

The history and narartive about what undermined the black family structure and marriage is recounted here. And its not as cut and dry and everyone thinks........

TANF Policies Reflect Racist Legacy of Cash Assistance​

Slavery and Jim Crow laid the foundation for the economic, reproductive, and behavioral control policies that have permeated later cash assistance programs, including TANF. Labeling Black people as biologically inferior to white people and inherently lazy, promiscuous, irrational, and resilient to pain, white enslavers employed forced reproduction and labor to exploit, control, and punish enslaved Black women while maximizing their economic returns. Even after emancipation, white policymakers and employers continued to control when and where many Black people worked. White landowners’ system of sharecropping trapped Black people in debt, which their meager earnings could rarely pay off. Vagrancy laws and other policies criminalized Black people and forced many of them into involuntary servitude and other forms of exploitative work.

Slavery and Jim Crow laid the foundation for the economic, reproductive, and behavioral control policies that have permeated later cash assistance programs, including TANF.
The idea that only some families “deserve” cash assistance is evident in mothers’ pensions of the early 20th century, which predated federal aid programs created in the New Deal. These state and local programs aimed to enable children to be cared for in their homes if their families lost a male breadwinner due to death, abandonment, or poor health. The original proponents of mothers’ pension programs made clear that a child’s deservingness for aid depended on the mother’s character; to state and local program administrators, that often meant aiding white children of widowed mothers, not children of unwed or Black mothers. Federal policymakers designing later cash assistance programs preserved much of states’ and localities’ discretion over mothers’ pension programs.

States’ control over the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, created in 1935, enabled them to exclude many Black and brown people. ADC (renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children or AFDC in 1962) provided federal funding to states to assist children who lived with a single mother. Southern members of Congress insisted that state and local officials control ADC eligibility and benefit levels, which enabled them to preserve an economic system that relied on the low-wage labor of Black workers in the South and Latinx workers in the Southwest.

The large majority of Black working women were excluded from other New Deal social programs like unemployment insurance and Old Age Insurance (now known as Social Security) because they were either domestic or agricultural workers, and many fell deeper into poverty during the Great Depression. Similarly, the new ADC program did little for Black families as they made up a small share of the ADC caseload, especially in the South. Many Southern states denied Black families access to ADC because they did not want to “interfere with local labor conditions.”

As ADC rolls grew and diversified in the 1940s and 1950s, a number of states imposed punitive policies to control mothers, disproportionally harming Black families.

Starting in the 1940s, some states passed conduct- or morals-based eligibility policies such as so-called “man-in-the-house” or “suitable home” policies. States targeted the new laws at Black and unmarried mothers and their children. For example, in the first three months after Louisiana barred children from receiving ADC if their mothers were deemed “unsuitable” because of sexual activity outside marriage, 95 percent of the 6,000 children cut off were Black.

In addition, many state policymakers focused on Black women’s work and work ethic, even though Black women have historically had higher work rates than white women. Some states passed “farm policies” cutting off ADC benefits during planting and harvest seasons to coerce Black parents to work in agriculture even if no paying jobs were available. These issues were not confined to the South: some policymakers in the North denounced Black migrants moving to their cities, who they claimed were unwilling to work and only seeking more generous ADC benefits.

Despite greater enforcement of federal protections for AFDC eligibility, harmful narratives about Black single mothers began driving debates over cash assistance in the 1960s and 1970s. In a positive development, federalization of some AFDC eligibility rules enabled significant gains in ensuring basic rights for those applying for or receiving aid during these decades. However, there was a growing backlash against the rising number of Black and brown families on AFDC and against Black social movements elevating the issue of Black poverty. In the 1960s and 1970s, increasingly negative media coverage about waste, fraud, or abuse in public assistance programs — stories often illustrated with photos of Black people — fed into stereotypes of Black single mothers as irresponsibly refusing to work and having large numbers of children to receive cash assistance. A controversial report on Black families by Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan reinforced these narratives about Black single mothers, as did speeches by presidential candidate Ronald Reagan attacking “welfare queens.”

The spread of these narratives contributed to weakened public support for AFDC and led many federal policymakers to begin moving away from the idea that AFDC mothers’ primary responsibility should be caring for their children in the home. The federal government took the first steps toward the work requirements that we see today in TANF by enacting the Work Incentive Program in 1968.

The end of the century brought a return to greater state control over cash assistance and an emphasis on “personal responsibility.” Racist narratives about Black women from the media and public figures continued to be the backdrop during the “welfare reform” debates of the 1980s and 1990s. Conservative scholars charged that AFDC and other government assistance reinforced a “culture of poverty,” especially within Black communities; the frameworks they proposed to address poverty centered work, regardless of whether jobs were available or if they paid a wage to lift families out of poverty.

Starting in the early 1980s, AFDC went through a series of changes. First, the Reagan Administration pushed through major cuts to the program. In the late 1980s and 1990s, the federal government issued waivers granting states flexibility to experiment with changes in their AFDC programs; use of the waivers expanded significantly in the early 1990s under the Clinton Administration. Often using racist dog whistles like promoting “personal responsibility,” state policymakers imposed new requirements and restrictions such as time limits, increased work requirements, and family caps (which punished families by limiting additional benefits if a mother had another child while receiving AFDC benefits).

Bill Clinton, who campaigned for the presidency promising to “end welfare as we know it,” and House Republicans led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, who talked about reestablishing orphanages in the context of “welfare reform,” called for even more dramatic changes. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which Clinton signed in August 1996 after vetoing two previous bills, replaced AFDC with the TANF block grant, wiping out federal eligibility rules and ending families’ entitlement (or individual right) to cash assistance. TANF includes harsh work requirements and grants states significant control over how to spend their fixed TANF resources; both of these design features give states strong incentives to make it hard for families to access aid and easy for families to lose assistance if they are able to get into the program.

TANF’s embedded racism and unfettered state control have led to a deteriorating cash assistance program for all families, with Black families facing a disproportionate impact. A quarter century after federal and state policymakers created and implemented TANF, an already low-benefit program has diminished further in generosity and reach, leaving millions of families with children with no regular source of income to meet their basic needs when they cannot work. In 1996, 68 families with children received benefits for every 100 families in poverty; by 2019, that figure had dropped to 23, and in 14 states it was 10 or less. (See Figure 1.) Black children have the greatest likelihood of living in states with the lowest benefits and with programs that reach the fewest families in need.[6]

TANF Policies Reflect Racist Legacy of Cash Assistance | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Economic security programs can help families meet basic needs and improve their lives, but design features influenced by anti-Black racism and sexism have created an inadequate system of support that particularly harms Black families and other families of color.

www.cbpp.org

if you read this and STILL want to believe that bullshit narrative that asshole was saying then youre a moron..period

 

[SPECTRE1]

I was the first to mention mass incarceration, how did ending Jim Crow cause it. Let say there is rampant retail theft in black part of town but very little if anything in white business areas. It would be hard to support grant funding and legislative action by white people to do anything. Why do you care what happens in the black part of town? It would also look suspicious.

I don't care about cartel violence because it doesn't affect me here or if I traveled to Mexico, and cartel violence does not come into tourist areas, who cares?

In come integration, shopping at communal retail outlets:

Rampant shoplifting that affects everybody, round the clock coverage by white media advocating for action. Look at your white business, with a black shoplifter just running out. Now there are police everywhere. The same thing with drugs, gangs, and violence; it comes into areas where whites shop, play, or live; now I am supporting laws to crackdown.

Here comes the white victim just going on about her business in an area that integrated.

 

[SPECTRE1]

TANF Policies Reflect Racist Legacy of Cash Assistance

I was just trying to get food stamps today, damn they extort you into giving all kinds of information that is unnecessary and isn't required by law. They slowed walked for almost an hour repeating the same question, grinding on me; it felt like a police interrogation. The hold times are almost an 10 hours because of this inefficient nonsense. At least they did not do me dirty with my healthcare.

If I wasn't disabled, I would be working gladly.

 

[geechiedan]

I was just trying to get food stamps today, damn they extort you into giving all kinds of information that is unnecessary and isn't required by law. They slowed walked for almost an hour repeating the same question, grinding on me; it felt like a police interrogation. The hold times are almost an 10 hours because of this inefficient nonsense. At least they did not do me dirty with my healthcare.

If I wasn't disabled, I would be working gladly.

There were Relief programs prior to FDR New Deal were developed excluded blacks, But that doesnt mean they were doing well. Just not on welfare. The same with marriage stats..just because a couple is together doesnt mean it wasn't dysfunctional or that the black husband/father didnt cheat on his wife or have another woman and child somewhere else (thus making THAT woman a hated single mother) and lets not act like that shit didnt go on back then.

the play and movie that best illustrates that point is called Fences by August Wilson.

That dude wasnt the best father or exmple for his son...cheated on his wife AND had a kid by another woman....BUT THEY STILL TOGETHER now this a fictional story but I double dog dare anyone on the thread to say this doesnt happen in real life?

The reailty is most welfare recipents are WORKING POOR and the program actually does help. The narrative that blacks want handouts is a racist one designed to otherize them. Clearly donalds bought into this narrative.

 

[stroker1999]

Just stop. Are you really going to split hairs over a black man that IMPLIED black people were better off under Jim Crown to a white audience at a trump campaign event? He didn't have to say one word. His presence there alone is unacceptable. So let's say I'm wrong about what he said. My initial comment is still very much valid.

He didn't imply that black people were better under Jim Crow. This is a completely disingenuous statement. He said the black FAMILY. Please let's not act like we can't understand this.

 

[stroker1999]

If he only wanted to highlight the time frame in years, he could have done that.

He said Jim Crow for a reason, and it's not because everyone there knew the historical timeline by that reference.

But hey, I'll do you one better. I don't give an actual shit if the "black family unit" was bigger, stronger, more conservative(?) or what the fuck ever during that time period. Shit was bad for black people, and it didn't get much better when that period "ended". There were just laws that sorta protected us after the fact (and sometimes didn't even do that).

Any time a black person says something that supports the bullshit metric that black people "had it better" or "owe a debt of gratitude" to the cruelty and intolerance of white people, it just feeds into the ass backwards belief system that so many racist and/or otherwise ignorant people lean into. Entertaining that shit is toxic and a bad idea.

And what is his point? If it was "we need to focus on family unity", then say that shit, and leave the Jim Crow era bullshit to yourself. I'm not going to be impressed by someone who is too fucking stupid to properly convey a basic to an audience. Not that I think his audience was black people, which is part of the problem to begin with.

Everyone on this forum knows EXACTLY what he said. You're just playing ignorant. Times were very hard for black people, yes. But the black FAMILY UNIT was strong. There was a mother and father in the house, unlike now. Kids respected their parents, unlike now. They had respect for themselves, unlike now. Please let's not act like we don't understand his point

 

[ghoststrike]

No

I'm saying the point is that America isn't sustainable with how many younger people think, simply put.. the bag can't be had by everyone, someone gotta be poor that's just the reality.

Byron and all these black conservative bring up family for a reason, family is where historically a man is content with or without.

The mindset that folks have is the bag and that isn't realistic for the majority, America is a business, as we are now we are a service economy.

Eventually it's going to come to a end, the bag won't be in America anymore and people will leave, that is a strong GOP point which is completely true, our military budget exceeds most countries total budget for a reason.

regardless of jim crow or whatever racism that took place, the point is solid, under jim crow we were forced, without a choice it wasn't right but it created more structure whether you agree or not.

Way too much word-salad gymnastics to defend what US Rep Byron Donalds says for head pats ON VIDEO and to be re-elected by his White Nationalist MAGA district in FL. Once he's no longer needed, you know how that script goes.

 

[Flawless]

No

I'm saying the point is that America isn't sustainable with how many younger people think, simply put.. the bag can't be had by everyone, someone gotta be poor that's just the reality.

Byron and all these black conservative bring up family for a reason, family is where historically a man is content with or without.

The mindset that folks have is the bag and that isn't realistic for the majority, America is a business, as we are now we are a service economy.

Eventually it's going to come to a end, the bag won't be in America anymore and people will leave, that is a strong GOP point which is completely true, our military budget exceeds most countries total budget for a reason.

regardless of jim crow or whatever racism that took place, the point is solid, under jim crow we were forced, without a choice it wasn't right but it created more structure whether you agree or not.

Back in the day you would be one of the slaves who would hold the legs of the slaves being hung.

 

[easy_b]

Coon

 

[geechiedan]

Everyone on this forum knows EXACTLY what he said. You're just playing ignorant. Times were very hard for black people, yes. But the black FAMILY UNIT was strong. There was a mother and father in the house, unlike now. Kids respected their parents, unlike now. They had respect for themselves, unlike now. Please let's not act like we don't understand his point

byron donalds narrative absolutely makes NO SENSE. If black marriages and family were so strong and cohesive WHY would the black woman CHOOSE welfare money over her husband?

Look at what he said: "DURING JIM CROW THE BLACK FAMILY WAS TOGETHER" and between the dept. of health and welfare and LBJ SUDDENLY the black wife DECIDED to trade in her marriage for a welfare check?? After surviving thru lynchings and acts of terror and violence. The black father in the home helping to raise and guide the kids. Education and success rates were high and the black married couple was able to make it thru all that misery and danger of jim crow laws and culture.

Turns out all it took to break that up was 200 dollars a month from uncle sugar!

And that makes sense to you???

Its a purposefully INACCURATE and INSULTING narrative especially to black women and its a shame to see BLACK MAN promoting it in the 21st century.

 

[easy_b]

byron donalds narrative absolutely makes NO SENSE. If black marriages and family were so strong and cohesive WHY would the black woman CHOOSE welfare money over her husband?

Look at what he said: "DURING JIM CROW THE BLACK FAMILY WAS TOGETHER" and between the dept. of health and welfare and LBJ SUDDENLY the black wife DECIDED to trade in her marriage for a welfare check?? After surviving thru lynchings and acts of terror and violence. The black father in the home helping to raise and guide the kids. Education and success rates were high and the black married couple was able to make it thru all that misery and danger of jim crow laws and culture.

Turns out all it took to break that up was 200 dollars a month from uncle sugar!

And that makes sense to you???

Its a purposefully INACCURATE and INSULTING narrative especially to black women and its a shame to see BLACK MAN promoting it in the 21st century.

Black people basically had to relocate to get away from Jim Crow. That’s how bad it was and a lot of Black people got killed because of Jim Crow.

 

[Big Tex]

He didn't imply that black people were better under Jim Crow. This is a completely disingenuous statement. He said the black FAMILY. Please let's not act like we can't understand this.

The Black family wasn't better under Jim Crow either. Just because more people were forced to be and stay together doesn't mean they were happy.

 

[Dr. Truth]

I keep telling yall Stroker1999 is a white bitch

 

[yureeka9]

He didn't imply that black people were better under Jim Crow. This is a completely disingenuous statement. He said the black FAMILY. Please let's not act like we can't understand this.

The Black Family = Black people. Let's not act like he wasn't pandering to whites that are always looking for a reason to denigrate black people.

 

[Big Tex]

There were more white families staying together when America was under British rule than there are now.

Sambo didn't hint that America was better off when it was a colony.

 

[geechiedan]

He didn't imply that black people were better under Jim Crow. This is a completely disingenuous statement. He said the black FAMILY. Please let's not act like we can't understand this.

The Black family wasn't better under Jim Crow either. Just because more people were forced to be and stay together doesn't mean they were happy.

To your point....what ACTUALLY broke up black marriage and subsequently black families was the creation of NO FAULT DIVORCE

Yes, women could divorce in the 1950s, but divorce laws were still restrictive:

• Fault
  Until the late 1960s, divorce laws required the petitioning party to prove fault, such as abandonment or adultery, to have their divorce granted. A person could not divorce their spouse simply because they were unhappy in the relationship.
• Family court system
  In the 1950s, the family court system was created, moving divorce from traditional court systems to one dedicated to divorce and family law matters.
• No-fault divorce
  The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) drafted and promoted a model no-fault divorce law in the 1950s, two decades before the no-fault divorce movement of the 1970s.

The divorce revolution of the 1960s and '70s was over-determined. The nearly universal introduction of no-fault divorce helped to open the floodgates, especially because these laws facilitated unilateral divorce and lent moral legitimacy to the dissolution of marriages. The sexual revolution, too, fueled the marital tumult of the times: Spouses found it easier in the Swinging Seventies to find extramarital partners, and came to have higher, and often unrealistic, expectations of their marital relationships. Increases in women's employment as well as feminist consciousness-raising also did their part to drive up the divorce rate, as wives felt freer in the late '60s and '70s to leave marriages that were abusive or that they found unsatisfying.

No-fault divorce is a legal status that allows a spouse to get a divorce without having to prove that their partner did something wrong. Before 1976, divorce was only possible if one spouse had acted wrongly, a rule known as the Schuldprinzip ("principle of guilt"). In 1969, California Governor Ronald Reagan* signed the first no-fault divorce bill in the United States, allowing couples to split for no other reason than "irreconcilable differences".

By 1977, 47 states permitted no-fault divorce, and by 1985, all 50 states permitted some form of no-fault divorce. New York was the last state to become no-fault, passing legislation in 2010.

Now...other than abuse or infidelity.... whats the other main factor that breaks up marriages... FINANCIAL STRESS...LACK OF MONEY OR ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT!!!

What was happening in the mid to late 60s that would illustrate this??? It was a demonstration of some sort... a march on something...hmmm

oh yeah...THIS WAS HAPPENING....

BLACK men were either unemployed or underemployed. To the point where they had to MARCH ON WASHINGTON EN MASSE and demand work. Look at the full title of the march on Washington.

JOBS being listed FIRST isn't a coincidence. See how this ties in to financial issues in the household????

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with Welfare or LBJ's new deal policies... OH and in 1969 California was a RED STATE! So conservatives ushered in the device that would ultimately lead to rising divorce stats ACROSS THE BOARD!!

So yeah black divorce stats were higher than whites but honestly hows that any different from any other negative stat which shows black negatively affected at a higher percentage that other groups which has more to with historic societal issues than welfare programs.

See how this makes what byron was saying nonsensical??? If the black family was together and cohesive and strong and jobs were plentiful and all was well in the black household....HOW THE FUCK COULD A WELFARE PROGRAM BREAK THAT UP??

Instead of addressing and exposing this...its infuriating to watch people twist his words into something different like he's saying jim crow was good for black people...thats stupid...what he's saying and implying as it stands is ridiculous in and of itself.







* Reagan later admitted that signing the bill was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life, possibly because his first wife, Jane Wyman, had unfairly accused him of "mental cruelty" to get a divorce in 1948.

 

[Big Tex]

To your point....what ACTUALLY broke up black marriage and subsequently black families was the creation of NO FAULT DIVORCE

Yes, women could divorce in the 1950s, but divorce laws were still restrictive:

• Fault
  Until the late 1960s, divorce laws required the petitioning party to prove fault, such as abandonment or adultery, to have their divorce granted. A person could not divorce their spouse simply because they were unhappy in the relationship.
• Family court system
  In the 1950s, the family court system was created, moving divorce from traditional court systems to one dedicated to divorce and family law matters.
• No-fault divorce
  The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) drafted and promoted a model no-fault divorce law in the 1950s, two decades before the no-fault divorce movement of the 1970s.

The divorce revolution of the 1960s and '70s was over-determined. The nearly universal introduction of no-fault divorce helped to open the floodgates, especially because these laws facilitated unilateral divorce and lent moral legitimacy to the dissolution of marriages. The sexual revolution, too, fueled the marital tumult of the times: Spouses found it easier in the Swinging Seventies to find extramarital partners, and came to have higher, and often unrealistic, expectations of their marital relationships. Increases in women's employment as well as feminist consciousness-raising also did their part to drive up the divorce rate, as wives felt freer in the late '60s and '70s to leave marriages that were abusive or that they found unsatisfying.

No-fault divorce is a legal status that allows a spouse to get a divorce without having to prove that their partner did something wrong. Before 1976, divorce was only possible if one spouse had acted wrongly, a rule known as the Schuldprinzip ("principle of guilt"). In 1969, California Governor Ronald Reagan* signed the first no-fault divorce bill in the United States, allowing couples to split for no other reason than "irreconcilable differences".

By 1977, 47 states permitted no-fault divorce, and by 1985, all 50 states permitted some form of no-fault divorce. New York was the last state to become no-fault, passing legislation in 2010.

Now...other than abuse or infidelity.... whats the other main factor that breaks up marriages... FINANCIAL STRESS...LACK OF MONEY OR ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT!!!

What was happening in the mid to late 60s that would illustrate this??? It was a demonstration of some sort... a march on something...hmmm

oh yeah...THIS WAS HAPPENING....

BLACK men were either unemployed or underemployed. To the point where they had to MARCH ON WASHINGTON EN MASSE and demand work. Look at the full title of the march on Washington.

JOBS being listed FIRST isn't a coincidence. See how this ties in to financial issues in the household????

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with Welfare or LBJ's new deal policies... OH and in 1969 California was a RED STATE! So conservatives ushered in the device that would ultimately lead to rising divorce stats ACROSS THE BOARD!!

So yeah black divorce stats were higher than whites but honestly hows that any different from any other negative stat which shows black negatively affected at a higher percentage that other groups which has more to with historic societal issues than welfare programs.

See how this makes what byron was saying nonsensical??? If the black family was together and cohesive and strong and jobs were plentiful and all was well in the black household....HOW THE FUCK COULD A WELFARE PROGRAM BREAK THAT UP??

Instead of addressing and exposing this...its infuriating to watch people twist his words into something different like he's saying jim crow was good for black people...thats stupid...what he's saying and implying as it stands is ridiculous in and of itself.







* Reagan later admitted that signing the bill was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life, possibly because his first wife, Jane Wyman, had unfairly accused him of "mental cruelty" to get a divorce in 1948.

I don't think anything you force people into is good in the long run. A bunch of kids that weren't wanted raised by people that no longer wanted to be together is no recipe for success.

 

[crossovernegro]

....and in saying that, he implied that the black family was better of because of jim crow. Was the black family better off because of jim crow? Are the gains we made due to the passage of the 64 Civil rights bill the cause of the black family being worse off? That's what he's implying...and I'm not saying he honestly believes that, but a huge swath of the people that vote for him and his party want to believe that and he knows where his bread is buttered.


.

He didn't imply that black people were better under Jim Crow. This is a completely disingenuous statement. He said the black FAMILY. Please let's not act like we can't understand this.

 

[geechiedan]

....and in saying that, he implied that the black family was better of because of jim crow. Was the black family better off because of jim crow? Are the gains we made due to the passage of the 64 Civil rights bill the cause of the black family being worse off? That's what he's implying...and I'm not saying he honestly believes that, but a huge swath of the people that vote for him and his party want to believe that and he knows where his bread is buttered.


.

I dont think he was implying that...what he was saying and implying is that democratic programs led to the demise of the black marriage and using prior marriage stats to show the contract. But numbers are just that... numbers What people tend to do is put a narrative to it and its usually bs. 80% of all people know this.