Were It Not for White Supremacy, America Would Have Single-payer Healthcare

geechiedan

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
AVvXsEjYgss9n7v20HbdwuRSYD90yvH8VaT24RDCyhM8-7cRvSmirBoXih8tUh3USgk_XGQz85rzYJl8fzese-K8N_ZNpsVwxq4-Iw2SsxRAZ-WLMx_CJWb45xe-Bk-NaiKSf8L7NXoK6PY-5Js31GBlV9IkcEZ7YRRuewyVEVrFY4iey1dXqutddGFFEA4UqJs=w640-h426



In the wake of the assassination of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson, Americans are wondering out loud why we’re getting ripped off by giant insurance companies when every other developed country in the world has healthcare as a right and pays an average of about half of what we do — and gets better outcomes.

As I point out in The Hidden History of American Healthcare: Why Sickness Bankrupts You and Makes Others Insanely Rich, and brought up with Joy Reid on her program last week, America is:

— The only developed country in the world that doesn’t recognize healthcare as a human right,
— The only country with more than two-thirds of its population lacking access to affordable healthcare and a half-million families facing bankruptcy every year because somebody got sick,
— The only country in the developed world where over 40% of the population carries $220 billion in medical debt,
— And the only country in the developed world that has, since its founding, enslaved and then legally oppressed and disenfranchised a large minority of its population because of their race.

These things, along with UnitedHealth’s $370 billion in revenue and $32 billion in profit, are connected.

Roughly 60 percent of Americans would have had to take out a loan or otherwise borrow or beg for money to deal with a single, unexpected $1,000 expense.

Yet annual family medical copays and out -of-pocket deductibles averaged $6,575 in 2023, when the Kaiser Family Foundation did a comprehensive survey of Americans. This strikes minorities particularly hard, which, it turns out, is not an accident.

The simple fact is that, were it not for slavery, white supremacy, and the legacy of “scientific racism,” America would have had a national, single-payer healthcare system in 1915, just 31 years after Germany put into place the modern world’s first such program.

At the center of the effort to prevent a national healthcare system — or any form of government assistance that may even incidentally offer benefit to African Americans — were Frederick Ludwig Hoffman and the Prudential Life Insurance Company, which promoted his “science based” racial theories to successfully fight single-payer health insurance.

Frederick Ludwig Hoffman Makes a Discovery​

Racism is the main reason that America doesn’t consider healthcare a human right and provide it to all citizens, in contrast to every other developed country in the world. Racist whites, particularly in the South, have worked for over a century to make sure that healthcare is hard for Black people and other minorities to get.

And their biggest ally, their founding spokesperson in the post–Civil War era, their biggest champion right up to the 1940s, was a man that most Americans have never heard of.

In 1884, 19-year-old Frederick Ludwig Hoffmann left Germany for America after failing at a number of job attempts and being rejected for the German Army because he was “physically deficient” and frail, standing five-foot-seven and weighing a mere 110 pounds. He arrived in New York with $4.76 in his pocket, speaking “not a word of English” but determined to prove wrong his mother’s assessment that he was a “good-for-nothing.”

From this humble beginning, Hoffmann went on to become one of America’s most influential statisticians and analysts of public health, making numerous consequential discoveries about how industrialization was killing American workers.

He dropped the last n in his last name, became so fluent in English that his accent was nearly indistinguishable, and married into an upscale Georgia family. By 1920 he was an American citizen, vice president of America’s largest insurance company, and a national authority on the now-discredited pseudoscience called scientific racism.

In 1908, his article “The Mortality from Consumption [tuberculosis] in the Dusty Trades,” published by the US Department of Labor, produced the first national efforts to reduce lung damage in the workplace. He also published the first work (1915) linking tobacco to lung cancer.

From this, he became vice president of the National Tuberculosis Association (today known as the American Lung Association) and later demonstrated the connection between exposure to asbestos and the disease that killed my father, mesothelioma (a bit of data that asbestos companies worked to keep hidden for the next 80 years).

But Hoffman’s most controversial lifelong obsession was with the relationship between disease, race, and society.

On one of his first trips to Georgia, he wrote, he came across a book by Dr. Eugene R. Corson, a Georgia obstetrician, titled The Vital Equation of the Colored Race and Its Future in the United States. It was apparently an updated or shortened version of Corson’s widely read “The Future of the Colored Race in the United States From an Ethnic and Medical Standpoint,” published in 1887 in the New York Medical Times.

This was just after the failure of Reconstruction, and a widespread topic of speculation, particularly in the South, was whether Black people would soon outnumber white people in that part of the country.

The Ku Klux Klan and others calling for wholesale slaughter and suppression of Black people claimed that they were more likely to have larger families because they were “more prolific,” code for “excessively sexual,” a charge that had persisted from the earliest days of slavery and led to the murder of Emmett Till (among others).

However, the “scientific” racists of the day, like Corson, thought differently. Corson led a movement suggesting that people of African ancestry, now lacking “the protective womb of slavery,” would die out for the simple reason that the Black race was “inferior to whites.”

Corson promoted the Klan’s argument that “the simpler the organism, the simpler the genesis and the greater the prolificness.” But, he said, white people would prevail because they were less likely to die of disease, citing Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility.

While Black people might have more children, Corson wrote, white people would still outnumber them because Black fecundity “is more than compensated for by the ability [of white people] to maintain individual life.”

Enslaved people from Africa had found themselves in a civilization “of which [they are] not a product” and thus were less likely to be successful in “the struggle for existence.” Therefore, Corson wrote, Black people “must suffer physically, a result which forbids any undue increase in the race.”

The discovery of this theory, called the racial extinction thesis, electrified Hoffman, and he spent the rest of his life promoting it, while campaigning to stop any sort of movement toward a national health insurance program that might prevent or slow down the extinction of Black people in America.

“Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro”​

In August 1896, the American Economic Association published a book that represented a turning point in Frederick Hoffman’s life and sealed the fate of single-payer health insurance in America. It was Hoffman’s magnum opus, summarizing decades of compiled statistics on Black versus white mortality, proving, according to Hoffman, once and for all, that for Black people, “gradual extinction is only a question of time.”

In Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro, Hoffman set out not only to repeatedly make and statistically prove the above claim, but also to prove that anytime white people tried to help Black people, particularly by offering them healthcare services, the result was disaster for both.

Noting that “the Negro has failed to gain a foothold in any of the northern states,” Hoffman wrote, “he is in the South as a permanent factor . . . with a tendency to drift into the cities, there to concentrate in the most undesirable and unsanitary sections . . . and the evil effect will be more felt by the cities which are thus augmented in population of an undesirable character.”
In great detail, Hoffman spent about 300 pages documenting, with exhaustive tables and statistics, the fact that Black people were more likely to die as a result of everything from malaria to tuberculosis to childbirth.

And it was all because of their race, Hoffman argued:

“The decrease in the rate of increase of the colored population has been traced first to the excessive mortality, which in turn has been traced to an inferior vital capacity. . . . This racial inferiority has, in turn, brought about a moral deterioration . . . sexual immorality . . . diminished social and economic efficiency . . .”
And that represented a danger to white people, Hoffman wrote.

The participation of freed Black people in the contemporary labor pool and in society overall, he wrote, “in the course of years must prove not only a most destructive factor in the progress of the colored race, but also in the progress, social as well as economic, of the white race brought under its influence.”
Slavery had actually been good for Black people, Hoffman believed, and the abolition of slavery at the end of the Civil War was only going to speed up the demise of that race.

“Nothing is more clearly shown from this investigation,” he wrote, “than that the southern black man at the time of emancipation was healthy in body and cheerful in mind. He neither suffered inordinately from disease nor from impaired bodily vigor.”
But with abolition, formerly enslaved people were “tending toward a condition in which matters will be worse than they are now, when diseases will be more destructive, vital resistance still lower, when the number of births will fall below the deaths, and gradual extinction of the race will take place.”
While Hoffman pioneered linking causal conditions such as asbestos and carcinogen exposure to sickness, he was so blinded by racism that a modern reader of his book constantly finds himself shouting, “But these things are also true of poor whites! These are caused by discrimination and poverty!!”

At the time, though, the vast majority of white Americans agreed with him. He was echoing the white cultural and scientific consensus of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when he wrote:

“Given the same conditions of life for two races, the one of Aryan descent will prove the superior, solely on account of its ancient inheritance of virtue and transmitted qualities which are determining factors in the struggle for race supremacy. The lower races, even under the same conditions of life, must necessarily fail because the vast number of incapables, which a hard struggle for life has eliminated from the ranks of the white races, are still forming the large body of the lower races.”
And, according to Hoffman and the other white “scientific racists,” the problem wasn’t just physical inferiority. The deepest “problem of the Negro,” Hoffman wrote, was moral:

“All the facts prove that a low standard of sexual morality is the main and underlying cause of the low and anti-social condition of the race at the present time. . . . The conclusion is warranted that it is merely a question of time when the actual downward course, that is, a decrease in the population will take place. In the meantime, however, the presence of the colored population is a serious hindrance to the economic progress of the white race.”
For those well-intentioned white people who wanted to help out the people who were a mere generation or two away from slavery, Hoffman and his colleagues had one simple bit of advice: Don’t even try.

From Scientific Racism to Libertarianism

In 1980, David Koch famously ran for vice president of the United States under the banner of the Libertarian Party, an organization founded a few decades earlier by big business to give an economic rationale and political patina to their simple theory that economics were more important than democracy, and the quality of life of working people should be decided in the “free marketplace” instead of by unions or through democratic processes via government regulation.

In this, Koch and his Libertarian friends were echoing Frederick Hoffman.

In his 1896 book Race Traits, Hoffman laid out his “scientific” assertion that when government steps in to help people, it invariably ends up hurting them instead. Not only should there be no government assistance given to help African Americans recover from three centuries of property theft, forced labor, and legal violence, but it is scientifically wrong to even consider the idea.

White people and government programs to better the lives of Black people, Hoffman wrote, deserve “the most severe condemnation of modern attempts of superior races to lift inferior races to their own elevated position.”

The damage done to Black people by offering them any sort of help, government assistance, or even a minimum wage, he wrote, is “criminal” behavior for a “civilized people.”

Hoffman pointed to Native Americans to prove his point:

“Few races have made such a brave struggle for their own preservation; few races can boast of so high a degree of aboriginal civilization. . . . An iron will can be traced upon the countenance of nearly every Indian of note.”
But it was government help, Hoffman wrote, that destroyed the American Indian.

It wasn’t “adulterated whiskey nor the frightful consequences of sexual immorality, spread around the forts and settlements of the whites,” that was “sufficient” to destroy Native Americans. It was charity.

“The most subtle agency of all,” he wrote, sounding like Ronald Reagan or David Koch, “governmental pauperism, the highest development of the theory of easy conditions of life, did what neither drink nor the poisons of venereal disease could do, and today the large majority of the tribes are following the Maories and Hawaiians towards the goal of final extinction.”
White Americans rationalized their brutality toward Native Americans and African Americans by saying that it was simple evolutionary biology: only the strong survive, and when the weak are allowed to propagate, it weakens the overall human race.

“Easy conditions of life and a liberal charity are among the most destructive influences affecting the lower races,” Hoffman concluded, “since by such methods the weak and incapable are permitted to increase and multiply, while the struggle of the more able is increased in severity [by the increase in taxes and regulation].”
And it’s not just charity.

“All the facts prove,” Hoffman wrote, “that education, philanthropy, and religion have failed to develop [among Black people] a higher appreciation of the stern and uncompromising virtues of the Aryan race.

“Instead of making the race more independent, modern educational and philanthropic efforts have succeeded in making it even more dependent on the white race at the present time than it was previous to emancipation.”
Free education — as any Libertarian can tell you — is more dangerous to the souls of people than slavery. And free healthcare is even worse.

Sounding like a modern-day acolyte of Ayn Rand, Hoffman wrote:

“Instead of clamoring for aid and assistance from the white race, the negro himself should sternly refuse every offer of direct interference in his own evolution. The more difficult his upward struggle, the more enduring will be the qualities developed.”
And, like Ayn Rand, David Koch, and Ronald Reagan, Hoffman believed that these were eternal truths independent of race:

“No missionary or educator or philanthropist extended aid or comfort to the English peasant class during its darkest days, to the earliest settlers on the coast of New England, or the pioneer in the forests of the far West. . . . t is extremely rare to find a case where easy conditions of life or liberal charity have assisted man in his upward struggle. Self reliance . . . must be developed, and thus far have not been developed by the aid of charity or liberal philanthropy.”

This libertarian ideal is still pervasive in our modern fragmented healthcare system, and in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020 it resulted in thousands of daily American deaths, disproportionately hitting racial minorities.

From Scientific Racism to “No Compulsory Healthcare!”​

The “compulsory health insurance” (what today we’d call Medicare for All) movement of the early 20th century was as much (and possibly more) about getting paid sick leave as it was about covering doctor visits and hospitalization, because healthcare was so cheap that an unpaid week at work was a bigger hit to the wallet.

But workers wanted both.

The most successful effort of the era came out of an organization that a small group of progressive economists put together in 1905 and 1906, known as the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL).

Their initial efforts were directed at paid sick leave, workers’ compensation insurance, child labor laws, and workplace safety standards. To that last end, they were actively using the kinds of statistical analysis that Frederick Hoffman had both used and popularized to do everything from laying out his theories on race to showing an association between tobacco use and lung cancer.

Hoffman joined the AALL to promote their efforts…at least that was his claim.

A charitable reading of his motivations was that his statistical research on workplace phosphorus poisoning and lung disease overlapped with their efforts, and they were an organization that, at that time, was held in high regard. He did, after all, consider himself — and was, in a very real way — a major force for reform in public health and workplace safety arenas.

A less charitable motivation is posited in Daniel T. Rodgers’s 1998 book Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age. Rodgers wrote:

“On the AALL social insurance committee, he became the [Prudential] company’s mole. . . . Hoffman took credit for blocking the drafting of any resolutions at the AALL’s social insurance conference in 1913. During the framing of the association’s model health insurance bill, he dragged his feet, obstructed, pressed in vain for company initiatives in the medical insurance field, and informed his employers — more and more certain that public health insurance was ‘distinctly pernicious and a menace to our interests.’”
Despite Prudential and Hoffman’s efforts, government-funded health insurance was gaining popularity in America (and being adopted across Europe).

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt made a third-party bid for the presidency, forming the Progressive Party (with its Bull Moose logo), and called for “the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance.”

Jane Addams (Hull House founder), dressed in suffragette white, seconded Roosevelt’s nomination to wild cheers and applause; Roosevelt rallies routinely drew tens of thousands of people, and more than 200,000 people showed up in Los Angeles to support him and the party.

Roosevelt’s endorsement of “social insurance,” including health coverage, both reflected and reinforced a growing national sentiment, and in 1915 the AALL called for every state to support a program of health insurance. Prudential hadn’t yet gotten into the business of insuring health (they would in 1925), but they could see the writing on the wall.

In 1916, the AALL endorsed health insurance provided through a network of local and statewide mutual companies and called for those policies to also provide a small death benefit to cover funeral costs, which would have competed directly with the funeral coverage that was Prudential’s main cash cow.

Hoffman wrote to the company, “We, of course, cannot compete with Compulsory Insurance, including a death benefit of, say $100.” He then resigned “in disgust” from the AALL and begin a campaign, sponsored by Prudential, to stop state-funded health insurance.

Hoffman and Prudential weren’t alone in their concern: the Insurance Federation of New York told their members:

“This is only the entering wedge; if once a foothold is obtained it will mean attempts to have such State Insurance of all kinds...”
The AALL produced model legislation that was taken up in 1916 by eight states, including California and New York, the former via a ballot initiative and the latter in the New York legislature. In addition to calling for policies that would pay all costs of healthcare, the AALL’s legislation called for up to 26 weeks of paid sick leave.

Picking up steam, the American Medical Association endorsed the AALL’s model legislation as well. The battle was joined.

Prudential Helps Kill America’s First Healthcare for All Campaign​

Hoffman’s Prudential-sponsored campaign to prevent any state from adopting a statewide nonprofit health (and death benefit) insurance program went into overdrive through 1916–1920. He traveled to Germany several times to chronicle, in minute detail, the failings of the kaiser’s system that had been operating since 1885.

Prudential, in 1905, had been swept up in New York’s Armstrong Investigation, and so, as historian Beatrix Hoffman (no relation to Frederick) wrote, “ecause of their industry’s public image problems, insurance executives knew their opposition to compulsory health insurance would be perceived as brazen self-interest.”

They needed a front man, and the guy who was famous for discovering the causes of numerous public health crises was perfect. Thus, Frederick Hoffman became the most well-known face of a massive, multiyear effort to stop the AALL’s campaign. He was remarkably effective.

In the years between 1916, when he resigned from AALL, and 1920, when nonprofit state-funded health insurance finally died, Hoffman wrote numerous pamphlets trashing the German single-payer government health system, “exposing” corruption in the British efforts at a National Health Service, and arguing that America’s healthcare system would be thrown into chaos and crisis if the AALL’s programs were adopted.

His work was widely distributed, as historian Daniel Rodgers noted: “The Prudential saturated the state capitols with his pamphlets.”

His 1917 pamphlet Facts and Fallacies of Compulsory Health Insurance, and the subsequent More Facts and Fallacies of Compulsory Health Insurance, published two years later, were his most widely cited and most consequential writings.

Historian Beatrix Hoffman wrote that the Facts pamphlet “resembled Race Traits and Tendencies in its impressive presentation of statistics and graphs alongside passionate polemics.” Frederick Hoffman refuted every figure the Progressives used in defense of their plan, from “Misleading Data on German Longevity” to “Misleading Estimate of Cost” and “Disregard of Actuarial Methods.”

Appealing to the Daniel Boone mythos of rugged, independent individualism that didn’t require assistance from government, Frederick Hoffman wrote in More Facts and Fallacies of Compulsory Health Insurance:

“The ever-present menace to democracy and liberty is the perversion of the legislative function [toward providing health insurance].”
Hoffman’s writing and speeches shook America’s political systems, particularly as this German-born “man of science” warned of the dire consequences to American liberty and democracy represented by universal health insurance.

In 1918, John R. Commons — one of the AALL’s cofounders — wrote that almost all the nation’s anti–compulsory health insurance propaganda “originates from one source; all of the ammunition, all of the facts and statistics that may come across, no matter who gives them to you, will be found to go back to the Prudential Insurance Co. of America, and to Mr. Frederick L. Hoffman.”

Prudential paid to transport Hoffman all across America, from media events to congressional hearings to a trip to England to document the horrors of their National Health Service system, which had gone into effect in 1911.

He wrote from London, in a widely read paper, that because of the British National Insurance Act, “The fine spirit of the English working classes, at one time the finest people of that type in the world, is gone, entirely gone.”

Historian Beatrix Hoffman wrote:

“His agitation was tireless, his influence widespread. . . . His reputation as an expert allowed Hoffman to participate in the deliberations of the health insurance commissions of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Connecticut, and to successfully persuade commission members to vote against the plan.”
In 1920, in large part because of Prudential’s efforts and Hoffman’s warnings, California’s voters resoundingly turned down a voter initiative in that state to provide health insurance, and, although New York’s Senate passed the bill, it died in committee in the Assembly.

While the AALL continued to campaign for state-funded health insurance until their dissolution in 1946, they never again gained enough traction to get their proposal before any state legislatures or the US Congress.

Having succeeded in killing state-funded health insurance, Hoffman, in the later 1920s, turned his attention back to his theory that Black people would eventually die out, joining the Eugenics Research Association (whose work was later used by Hitler to justify racial separation and his “final solution”).

In 1929, Hoffman asserted, in the African American publication Opportunity, that “the white race is almost solely responsible . . . for the health progress which the South has made during the last generation” and that Black people moving in large numbers into cities would “lead to a thoroughly unwholesome state of affairs which unquestionably will express itself in course of time in a lower birth rate and a higher death rate.”

Hoffman’s influence lasted long past his death in 1946 (which satisfied his stated desire to live long enough to see FDR out of office). As late as 1984, according to reporting in the Wall Street Journal, Prudential was still collecting premiums from African Americans that were “in some instances more than a third higher” than those paid by whites.

We even see an echo of it in the opposition of southern white racist Senators to Medicare in 1965, arguably leading to the 20% hole in that system that requires MediGap policies to fill.

Were it not for “scientific racism,” America would have long ago joined the rest of the developed world with a competent and efficient national healthcare system. Instead, we’re stuck with for-profit health insurance giants sucking our blood like giant leeches attached to our backs.
 
:thumbsup: Interesting read re: "Racism and healthcare." 10 states have not expanded Medicaid under the **ACA/ObamaCare to provide health care for the poor -- many of whom are of course Black. 7 of the 10 --70% are states of the old Confederacy: "Ala --FL --GA -Miss -- S.C --Tenn --TX." Coincidence or buttressing many of the POV expressed in this article??:yes:
* The Feds pay 90% of the tab! :money:
 
is this better?

AI Overview

Frederick Ludwig Hoffman is a significant figure in the history of opposition to universal healthcare in the United States, particularly due to his arguments rooted in racism
.
Frederick Ludwig Hoffman:
  • Racial Extinction Theory: Hoffman, a German immigrant and statistician for Prudential Life Insurance Company, promoted the "racial extinction theory," which posited that Black Americans had less "ability to maintain individual life."
  • Opposition to Healthcare for Black Americans: He argued that providing healthcare to Black Americans would simply delay their perceived inevitable decline and extinction, contradicting the "natural order."
  • Influence on Policy: Hoffman's racist theories were unfortunately influential at the time and were integrated into broader conservative arguments against national healthcare programs.
  • Shift in Argument: The initial argument against providing healthcare to Black Americans evolved into a broader idea that it was morally wrong to deny healthcare to those who could not afford it, a group that disproportionately included Black Americans.
Beyond Hoffman:
  • Racial Resentment and Healthcare: Studies have shown that racial resentment against Black people has been correlated with support for burdensome healthcare policies and lower rates of participation in programs like the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
  • Historical Context: Historically, racism has played a role in shaping US healthcare policy, leading to the creation of separate and unequal facilities and policies that limited access to care for minority populations.
  • "Separate but Equal": The Hill-Burton Act, meant to fund hospital construction, allowed for the establishment of racially segregated facilities, despite mandating non-discrimination.
  • Continued Disparities: Structural racism continues to impact healthcare access and equity, leading to higher rates of untreated health concerns and higher death rates in minority populations.
In summary, while Frederick Ludwig Hoffman explicitly linked his opposition to universal healthcare with racist beliefs, the broader context of healthcare policy in the US reveals a long history of structural racism and racial resentment influencing access to care and shaping policies that have disproportionately impacted Black Americans and other minority groups.
 
White people just love Socialism when the population is almost entirely white. But in a diverse society, socialism is a dirty word. All of a sudden Socialism doesn’t work. Funny how that works right?
:rolleyes:

I think religion plays far more significant part that we realize.

European nations that have significant ethnic minority populations DO have socialized health care, UK, France, Belgium for example.

We (Americans) have fallen prey to the idea, rooted in puritanism, that we must all be rugged individuals, who should dutifully lay down and die if afflicted by illness and starve if relieved of monetary resources.

That, and the nature of capitalism itself, are the primary reasons we don't have healthcare for all. It is criminal. But so is the United States. Has been since inception.
 
I think religion plays far more significant part that we realize.

European nations that have significant ethnic minority populations DO have socialized health care, UK, France, Belgium for example.

We (Americans) have fallen prey to the idea, rooted in puritanism, that we must all be rugged individuals, who should dutifully lay down and die if afflicted by illness and starve if relieved of monetary resources.

That, and the nature of capitalism itself, are the primary reasons we don't have healthcare for all. It is criminal. But so is the United States. Has been since inception.
why give racism a pass considering its built into the fabric of this country??
 
why give racism a pass considering its built into the fabric of this country??

Please re-read and point out exactly where I gave racism a pass.

I am simply stating that racism, although part of the foundation of this nation, and clearly one of its worst enduring features, is not the single cause of everything.

One of the justifications for genocide and slavery in the U.S. was that, by not being Christian, Native and African peoples were not afforded any rights white Christians were bound to respect.

It is a mistake to underestimate the role of religion in creating oppressive governments, particularly when such a patriarchal narrative permeates the religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all the same relgion actually) that have influenced history with such disastrous results during the last 2000 years or so.

Who do you think financed the transatlantic slave trade? Ever heard of the Catholic Church?

Telling a story that only contains selective facts has gotten us where we are today.
 
Please re-read and point out exactly where I gave racism a pass?

I am simply stating that racism, although part of the foundation of this nation, and clearly one of its worst enduring features, is not the single cause of everything.

One of the justifications for genocide and slavery in the U.S. was that, by not being Christian, Native and African peoples were not afforded any rights white Christians were bound to respect.
Telling a story that only contains selective facts has gotten us where we are today.

Im Not reading all of that.
No loss.

It was directed @geechiedan in response to his question.
 
white supremacy is the means by which it is enforced and people are deceived into thinking it can't work here, it's bad, etc.

the reason is the same old story, told dozens of times - a group of rich white men want to get richer.
 
white supremacy is the means by which it is enforced and people are deceived into thinking it can't work here, it's bad, etc.

the reason is the same old story, told dozens of times - a group of rich white men want to get richer.
We have 50 million black people. How do we provide care to 50 million people?
 
white supremacy is the means by which it is enforced and people are deceived into thinking it can't work here, it's bad, etc.

the reason is the same old story, told dozens of times - a group of rich white men want to get richer.
True.

My point is that white supremacy is partially based, and substantially supported by religion.
 
If white supremacy had not killed Jesus then we would not have this poison the masses and create a cure for the poison. They buried Jesus identity along with all the true artifacts of blacks. There motto is kill what is natural and promote the raise of what is false.
HELP-WANTED.jpg
 
If white supremacy had not killed Jesus then we would not have this poison the masses and create a cure for the poison. They buried Jesus identity along with all the true artifacts of blacks. There motto is kill what is natural and promote the raise of what is false.
HELP-WANTED.jpg

Actually, Norrin Radd has brought us the message of Deliverance. Accept your fate.

Galactus will make meals of us all. Yea, verily.
 
True.

My point is that white supremacy is partially based, and substantially supported by religion.

I'd say they're now inextricably intertwined. But the whole "whitey is superior thing" was first. Why? Greed of course. Closely followed by envy and laziness that instead of building and inventing your own shit, let's steal it and take credit after destroying the original. Some things never change.

Anyway, the white-supremacy thing needed a delivery mechanism. Violá - religion. It checked so many boxes it really is astounding.
Justification - check - they're savages who need the lawd
Why are we here - check - to bring jeebus to the savages
Indoctrination - check - It's why do we build churches where no one can read but we have lots of pretty windows with pictures of WHITE men
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - check - oh, yeah. Now we're talkin'.


And on and on it goes
 
Please re-read and point out exactly where I gave racism a pass.

I am simply stating that racism, although part of the foundation of this nation, and clearly one of its worst enduring features, is not the single cause of everything.

One of the justifications for genocide and slavery in the U.S. was that, by not being Christian, Native and African peoples were not afforded any rights white Christians were bound to respect.

It is a mistake to underestimate the role of religion in creating oppressive governments, particularly when such a patriarchal narrative permeates the religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all the same relgion actually) that have influenced history with such disastrous results during the last 2000 years or so.

Who do you think financed the transatlantic slave trade? Ever heard of the Catholic Church?

Telling a story that only contains selective facts has gotten us where we are today.

SLAVE LAWS PASSED IN VIRGINIA:

1660 — 1680: Slave Laws Further Restrict Freedom of Blacks and Legalize Different Treatment for Blacks and Whites

1667 - Virginia lawmakers say baptism does not bring freedom to blacks. The statute is passed because some slaves used their status as a Christian in the 1640s and 1650s to argue for their freedom or for freedom for a child. Legislators also encourage slave owners to Christianize their enslaved men, women and children.

1668 - Free black women, like enslaved females over the age of 16, are deemed tithable. The Virginia General Assembly says freedom does not exempt black women from taxation.

1669 - An act about the "casual killing of slaves" says that if a slave dies while resisting his master, the act will not be presumed to have occurred with “prepensed malice.”

1670 - Free blacks and Native Americans who had been baptized are forbidden to buy Christian servants.

1672 - It becomes legal to wound or kill an enslaved person who resists arrest. Legislators also deem that the owner of any slave killed as he resisted arrest will receive financial compensation for the loss of an enslaved laborer. Legislators also offer a reward to Indians who capture escaped slaves and return them to a justice of the peace.

That law effectively makes slavery chattel and also separates whites from nonwhites in the institution..

AI search: it is documented that some free African Americans in colonial America owned white indentured servants, particularly in the early to mid-17th century. This occurred before the legal distinction between enslaved people and indentured servants became rigidly defined based on race.
Anthony Johnson, an African American who had gained his freedom from indentured servitude, is a notable example. He acquired land in Virginia and is known to have hired and owned indentured servants, including some who were European. There is even a historical account of his successful legal battle to retain ownership of an African man named John Casor, a case that contributed to the concept of lifelong servitude based on race.


But you'd have to go back the early 1600s to find any cases like that in the colonies.

I'd say they're now inextricably intertwined. But the whole "whitey is superior thing" was first. Why? Greed of course. Closely followed by envy and laziness that instead of building and inventing your own shit, let's steal it and take credit after destroying the original. Some things never change.

Anyway, the white-supremacy thing needed a delivery mechanism. Violá - religion. It checked so many boxes it really is astounding.
Justification - check - they're savages who need the lawd
Why are we here - check - to bring jeebus to the savages
Indoctrination - check - It's why do we build churches where no one can read but we have lots of pretty windows with pictures of WHITE men
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - check - oh, yeah. Now we're talkin'.


And on and on it goes

You and Knight make a good points. Religion precedes the concept of race by thousands of years but race stratifies things in ways religion cant. Look at those slave laws...you see christian all over it...but this particular code:

Free blacks and Native Americans who had been baptized are forbidden to buy Christian servants.
WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN??We know in the early 1600s a few black did own who servants..so what does that line mean in 1670??

that highlighted law forbids free blacks and indians from owning WHITE SERVANTS (christian=white) so while free blacks could own other blacks they couldn't own whites by law...

So about 100 years before the birth of the United States Of America..race was already codified and embedded in the laws of the land.

“A Negro and by Consequence an Alien” - The legacy of Legal Race Making.

this a bit drier read BUT it does show the development of what would become "race" classifications as it developed between the 1100s and 1500s Europe. For example sub-Saharan Africans were generally called Ethiopians. That was the catch-all term for any dark skin African, western Europeans encountered at that time. You don't necessarily see the term "Black" used for Africans in the early middle ages but you see it in their artwork... Many of the images in their art that portrayed bad things like executioners and negative religious symbols were characterized with black colored skin and African features, so you start to see an early connection with Black = sin/evil/unredeemable. Its not necessarily SAID but its SHOWN.

Around the 1300s and 1400s you start to see the term "Black" in association with dark skin Africans. As the slave trade moved across the Atlantic to western Europe, the catholic church in Spain starts to use its influence to further marry the color Black + unredeemable sin + slavery = dark skin Africans are supposed to have this position in a social structure in life.

This is adopted in the Americas and by the late 1600s, 1700s the colonies/USA are looking for ways to perfect the slave system they have by developing chattel slavery making the condition heritable and permanent for offspring thru the mother. While all this is happening the term Black and Slave are used interchangeably and synonymously in their laws and customs. When you say slave you mean Black and when you say Black its understood its about a person of the lowest social order.

All of this took centuries to work out but by the 1800s the culture had solidified and the perception of Africans/American Blacks had been set. So by the time slavery was "abolished" (except as a form of punishment for crime) the immediate response was to come up with work arounds for this group of people whom the Bible deemed unredeemable and therefore subjugation was supposed to be their normal and rightful state of living. Hence Black Codes and Vagrancy Laws and Jim Crow Laws and before you know it we're in the latter part of the 20th century around the1960s before the last vestiges of all that shit is officially removed tho the perceptions and treatment remains defacto.
 
SLAVE LAWS PASSED IN VIRGINIA:

1660 — 1680: Slave Laws Further Restrict Freedom of Blacks and Legalize Different Treatment for Blacks and Whites

1667 - Virginia lawmakers say baptism does not bring freedom to blacks. The statute is passed because some slaves used their status as a Christian in the 1640s and 1650s to argue for their freedom or for freedom for a child. Legislators also encourage slave owners to Christianize their enslaved men, women and children.

1668 - Free black women, like enslaved females over the age of 16, are deemed tithable. The Virginia General Assembly says freedom does not exempt black women from taxation.

1669 - An act about the "casual killing of slaves" says that if a slave dies while resisting his master, the act will not be presumed to have occurred with “prepensed malice.”

1670 - Free blacks and Native Americans who had been baptized are forbidden to buy Christian servants.

1672 - It becomes legal to wound or kill an enslaved person who resists arrest. Legislators also deem that the owner of any slave killed as he resisted arrest will receive financial compensation for the loss of an enslaved laborer. Legislators also offer a reward to Indians who capture escaped slaves and return them to a justice of the peace.

That law effectively makes slavery chattel and also separates whites from nonwhites in the institution..

AI search: it is documented that some free African Americans in colonial America owned white indentured servants, particularly in the early to mid-17th century. This occurred before the legal distinction between enslaved people and indentured servants became rigidly defined based on race.
Anthony Johnson, an African American who had gained his freedom from indentured servitude, is a notable example. He acquired land in Virginia and is known to have hired and owned indentured servants, including some who were European. There is even a historical account of his successful legal battle to retain ownership of an African man named John Casor, a case that contributed to the concept of lifelong servitude based on race.


But you'd have to go back the early 1600s to find any cases like that in the colonies.



You and Knight make a good points. Religion precedes the concept of race by thousands of years but race stratifies things in ways religion cant. Look at those slave laws...you see christian all over it...but this particular code:

Free blacks and Native Americans who had been baptized are forbidden to buy Christian servants.
WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN??We know in the early 1600s a few black did own who servants..so what does that line mean in 1670??

that highlighted law forbids free blacks and indians from owning WHITE SERVANTS (christian=white) so while free blacks could own other blacks they couldn't own whites by law...

So about 100 years before the birth of the United States Of America..race was already codified and embedded in the laws of the land.

“A Negro and by Consequence an Alien” - The legacy of Legal Race Making.

this a bit drier read BUT it does show the development of what would become "race" classifications as it developed between the 1100s and 1500s Europe. For example sub-Saharan Africans were generally called Ethiopians. That was the catch-all term for any dark skin African, western Europeans encountered at that time. You don't necessarily see the term "Black" used for Africans in the early middle ages but you see it in their artwork... Many of the images in their art that portrayed bad things like executioners and negative religious symbols were characterized with black colored skin and African features, so you start to see an early connection with Black = sin/evil/unredeemable. Its not necessarily SAID but its SHOWN.

Around the 1300s and 1400s you start to see the term "Black" in association with dark skin Africans. As the slave trade moved across the Atlantic to western Europe, the catholic church in Spain starts to use its influence to further marry the color Black + unredeemable sin + slavery = dark skin Africans are supposed to have this position in a social structure in life.

This is adopted in the Americas and by the late 1600s, 1700s the colonies/USA are looking for ways to perfect the slave system they have by developing chattel slavery making the condition heritable and permanent for offspring thru the mother. While all this is happening the term Black and Slave are used interchangeably and synonymously in their laws and customs. When you say slave you mean Black and when you say Black its understood its about a person of the lowest social order.

All of this took centuries to work out but by the 1800s the culture had solidified and the perception of Africans/American Blacks had been set. So by the time slavery was "abolished" (except as a form of punishment for crime) the immediate response was to come up with work arounds for this group of people whom the Bible deemed unredeemable and therefore subjugation was supposed to be their normal and rightful state of living. Hence Black Codes and Vagrancy Laws and Jim Crow Laws and before you know it we're in the latter part of the 20th century around the1960s before the last vestiges of all that shit is officially removed tho the perceptions and treatment remains defacto.


I'll have to disagree with you there.

You're citing slavery laws from the USA. Slavery was not exclusive to the USA for one thing (the vast majority of enslaved Afrikans ended up in South and Central America), but also by the 1600s religion had been fine-tuned into the control mechanism it remains today. It's still being modified into whichever shape suits its user.

I'd say the class construct has stratified things more than religion but, as with all things in the white superiority handbook, they are intertwined. It might be best to look at them all as branches of the white supremacy tree.

Quick and dirty history - when the ice receded and wyt crawled out of his caves with his women and livestock (many times the same thing) he headed for warmer climes, eventually coming into contact with the ancient Afrikans. Let's remember at that time white represented evil in Afrika.
Being trapped in the ice created a society of strong over weak; men over women. Afrikan society was not like that then. It was matriarchal.
Anyway, wyt was astonished by the civilization they saw and even more surprised that the Afrikans repelled any attempts, martial or otherwise, to infiltrate. This was the First Dynasty, not the Egypt you see in the movies. The First Dynasties (Old Kingdom) were Black Afrikan and wasn't having that smoke.

Buuuuuut, as always we are our worst enemy because our hearts are so warm and our souls so open. wyt was allowed entry and proceeded to stir shit up by identifying himself as white and Khemetans as black. So, the first racial divide. Khemtans paid little attention because it meant little to nothing to them. But wyt, being wyt wasn't content to share, the lies began to spread and wyt married into important families - and here's the shit - classified the children as white.
After generations of wyt manipulation Khemet was a mess making it ripe for invasion and so came the first intermediate period.

So, what I'm saying is wyt has always behaved as the barbaric savage he is, it just so happened that along the way he modified the things he stole, including religion - to suit his agenda. The creation, really the codification of catholicism is well documented probably most famously in the first council of Nicea.

We may be talking about different branches but I think we can all agree the tree bears nothing but poison fruit.
 
I'll have to disagree with you there.

You're citing slavery laws from the USA. Slavery was not exclusive to the USA for one thing (the vast majority of enslaved Afrikans ended up in South and Central America), but also by the 1600s religion had been fine-tuned into the control mechanism it remains today. It's still being modified into whichever shape suits its user.

I'd say the class construct has stratified things more than religion but, as with all things in the white superiority handbook, they are intertwined. It might be best to look at them all as branches of the white supremacy tree.

Quick and dirty history - when the ice receded and wyt crawled out of his caves with his women and livestock (many times the same thing) he headed for warmer climes, eventually coming into contact with the ancient Afrikans. Let's remember at that time white represented evil in Afrika.
Being trapped in the ice created a society of strong over weak; men over women. Afrikan society was not like that then. It was matriarchal.
Anyway, wyt was astonished by the civilization they saw and even more surprised that the Afrikans repelled any attempts, martial or otherwise, to infiltrate. This was the First Dynasty, not the Egypt you see in the movies. The First Dynasties (Old Kingdom) were Black Afrikan and wasn't having that smoke.

Buuuuuut, as always we are our worst enemy because our hearts are so warm and our souls so open. wyt was allowed entry and proceeded to stir shit up by identifying himself as white and Khemetans as black. So, the first racial divide. Khemtans paid little attention because it meant little to nothing to them. But wyt, being wyt wasn't content to share, the lies began to spread and wyt married into important families - and here's the shit - classified the children as white.
After generations of wyt manipulation Khemet was a mess making it ripe for invasion and so came the first intermediate period.

So, what I'm saying is wyt has always behaved as the barbaric savage he is, it just so happened that along the way he modified the things he stole, including religion - to suit his agenda. The creation, really the codification of catholicism is well documented probably most famously in the first council of Nicea.

We may be talking about different branches but I think we can all agree the tree bears nothing but poison fruit.
the purpose of posting the slave laws was to the introduction of race into the institution of chattel slavery. I dont dispute that slavery predates race or that class is a factor but in western culture race was created and designed or specific reasons and purposes and everytime someone says "this other thing is more of a factor than race for issues of american society" they either inadvertantly or purposefully diminish race as a real thing that's altered a group of people as a whole in significant ways to this day.

You all touched on everything but the one most fucked up thing Europeans invented that endures to this second.

They invented the pseudo science of race and conditioned various sub Saharan Africans they were "black". And the truly most fucked up part of it is that what makes race real is ADOS.

Ive posted this in previous threads about how the invention of race affected ADOS...

The 3rd greatest crime against humanity that cacs committed in the New World besides genocide and human bondage was the stripping of identity of a group of people, something thats almost unique in human history as far as I can tell. As fucked over as native groups were in their lands (native americans, aborigines, ainu (japan) central and south american peoples, filipinos (south east asians) etc) they still had some connection to their original identities, culture, language, religion even if they had to mask it in cac shit. In fact its been noted that the slave rebellions in the Caribbean were successful because those enslaved people had a stronger connection to their identity more so than the mainland american slaves. Even as they used European religion and culture as a cover (santeria for example).

Africans Americans lost our heritage, language religion etc its why you see us searching for ANYTHING to connect to and feel positive about ourselves whether thats asiatic, moorish, egypt or redefining a skin color designation whose sole purpose was for oppression and subjugation. Something else I said before...

When all your taught in a racist system is that you come from nothing and produce nothing...you start looking for yourself in everything. Hence Hebrew Israelites and Moors and Egypt and pretty much anything that exhibits thick lips and dark color.

The creation of race as a concept combined with the Atlantic slave trade really kinda created a whole new group of people. The specific origin of race as a concept is pinpointable to time and region and country. Unfortunately what makes "race" real today is ADOS...Black Americans.. what I mean is the skin color designation we were given solidified the concept the second the generation after those enslaved Africans either forgot, were never told and/or rejected any knowledge of who they were and where they came from.

Negro is spanish for black...ngger, nigga, nigra etc is just a bastardized slang for negro=black it all comes back to the same thing. :dunno:

Maybe that explains why pretty much every other group (to my knowledge) does not use the slur pertaining to them in their pop culture to the degree that black americans do. The n-word permeates every aspect of our culture and entertainment to the point where its weird if we DON'T hear it uttered at some point.

But unlike pretty much any other group in american society you have one group thats been completely cut off from its original heritage and ethnicity and MAYBE thats why the n-word flows so easily from the descendants of the african slaves because thats what we've been called more than anything else in this country..its a part of our AMERICAN history.
 
the purpose of posting the slave laws was to the introduction of race into the institution of chattel slavery. I dont dispute that slavery predates race or that class is a factor but in western culture race was created and designed or specific reasons and purposes and everytime someone says "this other thing is more of a factor than race for issues of american society" they either inadvertantly or purposefully diminish race as a real thing that's altered a group of people as a whole in significant ways to this day.

You all touched on everything but the one most fucked up thing Europeans invented that endures to this second.

They invented the pseudo science of race and conditioned various sub Saharan Africans they were "black". And the truly most fucked up part of it is that what makes race real is ADOS.

Ive posted this in previous threads about how the invention of race affected ADOS...

The 3rd greatest crime against humanity that cacs committed in the New World besides genocide and human bondage was the stripping of identity of a group of people, something thats almost unique in human history as far as I can tell. As fucked over as native groups were in their lands (native americans, aborigines, ainu (japan) central and south american peoples, filipinos (south east asians) etc) they still had some connection to their original identities, culture, language, religion even if they had to mask it in cac shit. In fact its been noted that the slave rebellions in the Caribbean were successful because those enslaved people had a stronger connection to their identity more so than the mainland american slaves. Even as they used European religion and culture as a cover (santeria for example).

Africans Americans lost our heritage, language religion etc its why you see us searching for ANYTHING to connect to and feel positive about ourselves whether thats asiatic, moorish, egypt or redefining a skin color designation whose sole purpose was for oppression and subjugation. Something else I said before...

When all your taught in a racist system is that you come from nothing and produce nothing...you start looking for yourself in everything. Hence Hebrew Israelites and Moors and Egypt and pretty much anything that exhibits thick lips and dark color.

The creation of race as a concept combined with the Atlantic slave trade really kinda created a whole new group of people. The specific origin of race as a concept is pinpointable to time and region and country. Unfortunately what makes "race" real today is ADOS...Black Americans.. what I mean is the skin color designation we were given solidified the concept the second the generation after those enslaved Africans either forgot, were never told and/or rejected any knowledge of who they were and where they came from.

Negro is spanish for black...ngger, nigga, nigra etc is just a bastardized slang for negro=black it all comes back to the same thing. :dunno:

Maybe that explains why pretty much every other group (to my knowledge) does not use the slur pertaining to them in their pop culture to the degree that black americans do. The n-word permeates every aspect of our culture and entertainment to the point where its weird if we DON'T hear it uttered at some point.

But unlike pretty much any other group in american society you have one group thats been completely cut off from its original heritage and ethnicity and MAYBE thats why the n-word flows so easily from the descendants of the african slaves because thats what we've been called more than anything else in this country..its a part of our AMERICAN history.


Bro, I did say everything you wrote here. But slavery doesn't predate the racial construct. If you read again I explain how white europeans created not only racial classes but also conflict between the classes. Every action after that is designed to propagate and support the whole white supremacy fairytale.

Religion came later as did the n-word - and more catastrophically - the mind-fuck that it's actually a term of endearment.

But I don't think we can ever forget that wyt is the enemy. Everything he's done from day dust is detrimental to every other living organism on this godforsaken hellhole of a planet.

We can argue the nuances but the hard fact is wyt is a fucking virus. A deadly virus.
 
Please re-read and point out exactly where I gave racism a pass.

I am simply stating that racism, although part of the foundation of this nation, and clearly one of its worst enduring features, is not the single cause of everything.

One of the justifications for genocide and slavery in the U.S. was that, by not being Christian, Native and African peoples were not afforded any rights white Christians were bound to respect.

It is a mistake to underestimate the role of religion in creating oppressive governments, particularly when such a patriarchal narrative permeates the religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all the same relgion actually) that have influenced history with such disastrous results during the last 2000 years or so.

Who do you think financed the transatlantic slave trade? Ever heard of the Catholic Church?

Telling a story that only contains selective facts has gotten us where we are today.

I see what you are saying. I don't agree. The fundamental driving force is white supremacy. The religion was just a conduit. European countries have the same religious background as the US if not worse. They come from serfdom they have a history of Kings owning EVERYTHING. The legal authority for taking over America and enslaving black people was based on the idea that the natives weren't Christian WHITE men. Being christian wasn't enough to give them rights. Even if they converted they were not conveyed property rights or given freedom from slavery but in Europe they were. In europe you could convert and be a citizen. The reason they threw the Christian in their was because the laws originated from the religious wars of Europe.

Christian ideal play no role in these laws. They are only meant as a dogwhistle for racist ideals. The fundamentals of healthcare racism are very true. Every beneficial program that they want to get rid of they put a black face on it's abuse. When we think of welfare fraud snap abuse medicaid fraud they paint that with a black face. When we talk justice reform they stop it with a black or latino face. This fear of the outsider getting ANY resources from white hands is what drives the lack of empathy white people in America have for the poor.
 
Bro, I did say everything you wrote here. But slavery doesn't predate the racial construct. If you read again I explain how white europeans created not only racial classes but also conflict between the classes. Every action after that is designed to propagate and support the whole white supremacy fairytale.

Religion came later as did the n-word - and more catastrophically - the mind-fuck that it's actually a term of endearment.

But I don't think we can ever forget that wyt is the enemy. Everything he's done from day dust is detrimental to every other living organism on this godforsaken hellhole of a planet.

We can argue the nuances but the hard fact is wyt is a fucking virus. A deadly virus.


I have literally struggled for years to resist coming to this conclusion.

If one looks around the world, and looks at history, it appears that nearly every other group is either fighting yt now, fighting the results of the actions of yt (colonialism, slavery, genocide, etc.) or both.

Even the so-called liberal white folks are telling us how to cope with what whitey at large has wrought, all the time trying to convince us to look on the bright side, and cautioning us not to get too upset about what he has done.

I am at a loss for a reasonable argument. I concede.

You are essentially correct.
 
is this better?

AI Overview

Frederick Ludwig Hoffman is a significant figure in the history of opposition to universal healthcare in the United States, particularly due to his arguments rooted in racism
.
Frederick Ludwig Hoffman:
  • Racial Extinction Theory: Hoffman, a German immigrant and statistician for Prudential Life Insurance Company, promoted the "racial extinction theory," which posited that Black Americans had less "ability to maintain individual life."
  • Opposition to Healthcare for Black Americans: He argued that providing healthcare to Black Americans would simply delay their perceived inevitable decline and extinction, contradicting the "natural order."
  • Influence on Policy: Hoffman's racist theories were unfortunately influential at the time and were integrated into broader conservative arguments against national healthcare programs.
  • Shift in Argument: The initial argument against providing healthcare to Black Americans evolved into a broader idea that it was morally wrong to deny healthcare to those who could not afford it, a group that disproportionately included Black Americans.
Beyond Hoffman:
  • Racial Resentment and Healthcare: Studies have shown that racial resentment against Black people has been correlated with support for burdensome healthcare policies and lower rates of participation in programs like the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
  • Historical Context: Historically, racism has played a role in shaping US healthcare policy, leading to the creation of separate and unequal facilities and policies that limited access to care for minority populations.
  • "Separate but Equal": The Hill-Burton Act, meant to fund hospital construction, allowed for the establishment of racially segregated facilities, despite mandating non-discrimination.
  • Continued Disparities: Structural racism continues to impact healthcare access and equity, leading to higher rates of untreated health concerns and higher death rates in minority populations.
In summary, while Frederick Ludwig Hoffman explicitly linked his opposition to universal healthcare with racist beliefs, the broader context of healthcare policy in the US reveals a long history of structural racism and racial resentment influencing access to care and shaping policies that have disproportionately impacted Black Americans and other minority groups.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::cheers: basically
 
Back
Top