- This topic has 199 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Why did the civil rights movement start when it did?
Why were Black people unhappy with their living situation at that moment? And why didn’t it happen earlier?
-
>And why didn’t it happen earlier?
Civil rights activism have occurred for ages in the US in all demographics-
Most blacks wanted equality but didn’t want integration. They had healthy families, their own schools, churches and even business.
Cost of living was low and income was comparably high because this was before we left Bretton Woods (stable currency that was hard to inflate) and before Hart-Celler imported 100,000,000 Mexicans to drive up prices and tank wages.Now look at post WWII:. Booming Economy, powerful unuions, the middle class had an iron grip on the political system and Education was producing conservative citizens that were hard for billionaires to screw over.
Billionaires decided to divide and conquer. Feminism failed to break the unuions and bring the surfs in line so the next attack was integration. Post WWII they had enough power in government and media to push the narrative and forced two communities together that are still being used today to divide and conquer. The problem is it didn’t work well enough so the fallback was Hart Cellar and decades of garbage education covering up the actual history of integration (rich people busting unuions and diluting the conservative vote) and replaced it with muh-diversity-is-our-strength…which ignores the declining economy, degraded education and generally unhappy and over worked population.
Tl;Dr billionaire democrats wanted more control and got it by funding discord
-
>Most blacks wanted equality but didn’t want integration
that changed quickly when the prospect of getting equal resources for Blacks wasn’t possible in a jim crow society because "separate but equal" was actively ignored by whites who failed to uphold their part of the deal.-
not wrong–but blacks didn’t want full integration. That’s the main point. Blacks wanted to be able to ride the same trains and buses but still wanted the independence of their own communities.
Full integration was forced on both sides at gunpoint.
-
>blacks didn’t want full integration
They weren’t a monolith and the neutral/anti integration crowd abandoned that very quickly early on once whites showed that separate but equal was never possible.-
>Was never possible with democrats in office
Ftfy
-
-
-
-
-
https://i.4cdn.org/his/1632848683835.jpg
To clarify a bit, and to illustrate what I mean, the most notable and important part of the ‘civil rights movement’ were the deadly riots which hit dozens of US cities from 1965 to 1968, and which left hundreds dead. Those riots were only possible because civil authorities had become too weak/feckless to stop them.
This weakness was a general symptom of systemic decay rather than a specific mechanism caused by a specific ‘thing.’ ‘Civil rights’ was like an opportunistic illness which infects the weakened immune system of someone who is already ill.
1865: Before the end of the Civil War, approximately 40 blacks had graduated from colleges and universities, all of which were in the North.
Civil rights movement (1865–1896)
>The most important civil rights leaders of this period were Frederick Douglass (1818–1895) and Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)
>1867: Morehouse Colllege is founded (this is where MLK went to college), and Howard University is founded in Washington, D.C. 1868: Howard University opens a medical department, becoming the first school to have a medical program for blacks. 1869: Howard opens a Law School, the first black law school (this is where Thurgood Marshall went to law school)
>1870: Harvard College graduates its first black student, Richard Theodore Greener, who goes on to a career as an educator and lawyer. After graduating from Harvard, Greener becomes a faculty member at the University of South Carolina. He is the first known black to be hired to the faculty of a flagship state university.
>1870: By this time, approximately 22 historically black colleges and universities are enrolling students in the United States.
>1876: Edward Bouchet becomes the first black to earn a Ph.D. at an American university. He receives his doctorate in physics from Yale.
>1876: Meharry Medical College opens as the second medical school for blacks.
>1877: Henry Ossian Flipper becomes the first black man to graduate from West Point. 1887: John H. Alexander becomes the second black student to graduate from West Point.
>1880: At this time 45 black colleges and universities are in existence.
>1890: About 64 black colleges are now enrolling students.-
/thread
-
Civil rights movement (1896–1954)
>At the turn of the 20th century, Booker T. Washington was regarded as the foremost spokesman for African Americans in the US.
>1900: More than 2,000 blacks have earned higher education degrees by this time, approximately 390 from white universities. There are now 78 black colleges and universities in the United States.
>1906: The first fraternity for black college men, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, is founded at Cornell University.
>1906: John Hope becomes the first black president of Morehouse College (where MLK went to college). 1926: Howard University in D.C., appoints its first black president, Mordecai Wyatt Johnson. Johnson, an educator and pastor, was an inspiration for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s initial interests in nonviolence.
>1908: The first sorority for black college women, Alpha Kappa Alpha, is founded at Howard University.
>W. E. B. Du Bois (who with other leaders, created the NAACP in 1909. Bois also became editor of its magazine The Crisis.
>1921: Amherst College graduate Charles Hamilton Houston becomes the first black editor on the Harvard Law Review, and Jasper Alston Atkins becomes the first black editor on the Yale Law Review.
>1932: At this time there are 117 historically black institutions of higher education, 36 public and 81 private.
>1933: Harvard Business School graduates its first black MBA student, H. Naylor Fitzhugh, the founder of Howard University’s marketing department.
>1941: A Harvard University black lacrosse player, Lucien V. Alexis Jr., is forced to sit on the sidelines in a game against the U.S. Naval Academy, which refused to allow blacks on its field. Protests erupted at Harvard
>1944: The United Negro College Fund is established to raise money for private historically black colleges. Frederick Douglass Patterson is the founder.
>1947: Jackie Robinson becomes the first African American to play professional sports in the major leagues.-
>1947: W. Allison Davis, a professor at the University of Chicago, becomes the first black faculty member to be appointed to a tenured position at one of the nation’s highest-ranked universities
>1947: the first black students graduate from Princeton University. Princeton is the last Ivy League institution to admit black students.
>1949: the first black to graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy
>1950: The American Medical Association accepts black members for the first time.
>1952: The first black student is admitted to the University of Tennessee.
>1954: The University of Florida is ordered to admit black students by the Supreme Court.
>1954: In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional.
>1955: Martin Luther King Jr., a graduate of Morehouse College, earns a Ph.D. in theology at Boston University.
>1961: Riots and protests by white students greet the University of Georgia’s first black students,
>1962: Riots erupt at the University of Mississippi when James Meredith arrives as the school’s first black student. Federal troops and U.S. marshals are sent in by President Kennedy to ensure Meredith’s entry. Two people are killed in the rioting on the Ole Miss campus.
>1963: President Kennedy sends troops to the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa to ease the admission of its first two black students-
>1963: The first three black students graduate from the U.S. Air Force Academy
>1966: U.S. military schools hire their first black faculty members
>1970: Protests are held by students at Ohio State University to demand the enrollment of more black students. The National Guard is called in to restore order.
>1971: Over 2,000 students at the University of Florida, Gainesville protest to demand the admission of more black students.
>1983: Federal government sues the state of Alabama in an effort to force more desegregation in its system of higher education.
>1990: The United Negro College Fund receives its largest donation ever of $50 million from Walter Annenberg.
>1990: Barack Obama is elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.
>1992: In United States v. Fordice, the Supreme Court orders 19 states to take immediate action to desegregate their public higher education systems.
>1993: Condoleezza Rice is appointed provost at Stanford University, making her the first black chief academic officer at Stanford.
>2001: Ruth J. Simmons becomes president of Brown University. She becomes the first African American to lead an Ivy League institution.
>2008: According to the U.S. Department of Education, in the year 2006 blacks earned 142,420 four-year bachelor’s degrees from American colleges and universities. The figure was more than double the number of bachelor’s degrees earned by blacks in 1990. The percentage of all master’s degrees earned by blacks increased from 5 percent in 1985 to 9.9 percent in 2006.
>2008: Barack Obama is elected president
>2010: The National Science Foundation reports that in 2009, 2,221 Black Americans earned doctorates, an all-time high.
-
-
You left out the part where Du Bois waited until Washington died and then hoovered up popular support and started telling blacks they needed to stop working and become dancers, painters and politicians
-
-
-
-
It was part of a general breakdown of social order in the US. The national murder rate doubled from the early-60’s to the late-60’s, and ‘civil rights’ was simply a symptom of the general decline of standards.
-
To clarify a bit, and to illustrate what I mean, the most notable and important part of the ‘civil rights movement’ were the deadly riots which hit dozens of US cities from 1965 to 1968, and which left hundreds dead. Those riots were only possible because civil authorities had become too weak/feckless to stop them.
This weakness was a general symptom of systemic decay rather than a specific mechanism caused by a specific ‘thing.’ ‘Civil rights’ was like an opportunistic illness which infects the weakened immune system of someone who is already ill.
-
this is probably the stupidest take possible. The US was at its height of wealth and power. But after fighting in two world wars and now watching the US abroad try to dismantle European empires, and the soviet union promising their way lead to equality for all. Combined with enough is enough. And with most blacks parents having been born post slavery now, they rightfully felt like little had changed during their generation. The US could have easily stopped the riots if it actually believed in continuing the system the rioting was against, but it didnt so it didnt.
-
>the first generation to leave the south and be born in the north thought enough was enough and that too little had changed
not very patient people are they-
Not exactly since black s did exist before the great migration up north and southern modes of discrimination did make their way up north s well.
The anti-defamation league was founded in response to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank
We can very clearly see that before the world wars the garden gnomes were leaning heavily into segregation and were offended that people would prosecute one of them over a black person. The defense clearly tried to paint the janitor as these stereotype of a violent black person was the other side was painted him as a jolly uncle tom figure who just found the body lying there was he was trying to do his job.
The segregated suburbs in Levittown were also made by a gnomish guy, so it was not even immediately after the war that this change occurred, rather there was an internal struggle where the anti-segregation garden gnomes eventually won out.
>garden gnomes were segregationists before this
Some southern garden gnomes were for it because if they were against it White Southerns woudl strip garden gnomes of their status or target them . Others were against it with several gnomish figures in the movement being southerners.-
Which begs the question, why would integrated blacks in the north give two shits about what was going on in the south?
-
Family
Call to do what’s right-
I mean, they had already launched extensive propaganda campaigns to pull as many blacks out of the south to be "saved" by the north. Surely they had done enough damage, right? Black people would know when enough was enough, right?
-
>Surely they had done enough damage, right? Black people would know when enough was enough, right?
What damage? People of all colour moved out of the South in general because it was a total backwater. There’s also the irony that you indirectly brought up was that despite hating blacks, white business, farms and other entities were dependent on them to function. Like if you hate Blacks so much why are you complaining when they leave?-
>he thinks it wasn’t northern blacks that started the great migrations
You’d think you’d know your people’s history -
I’m not Black American anon. You have to be blind to see that he South was not really worth it and the allure of better potential condition elsewhere was pretty high.
-
So you’re not american? And you’re trying to tell me what my history is? How much of a schizo can you be?
-
>And you’re trying to tell me what my history is?
What makes you think being American makes you innately more correct about American history? -
What makes you think I care about your twisted personal version of US history you freaking scrote?
-
Oh so you are getting flustered that your narrative filled with shit is getting called out? Who knew LULZ was a place that wasn’t filled with Yes men?
-
It’s an objective fact that black northerners started the great migrations
-
Nope. Many businesses in the north needed workers due to the collapse of European migration, increase in manufacturing demand and other factors. the South never was able to provide good jobs in general.
-
How strange that there’s no evidence for that yet there’s proof of black migration propaganda distributed to southern blacks
-
European migration collapsed because the labour unions realized in was undercutting wages so they passed the quotas to limit it. In steps the eternal scabs, whose bourgeoisie literally told them to be strikebreakers in protest of segregation.
-
>European migration collapsed because the labour unions realized in was undercutting wages so they passed the quotas to limit it.
Nope. Europe by that era was doing pretty well and their emigration bummers were dwindling.>In steps the eternal scabs, whose bourgeoisie literally told them to be strikebreakers in protest of segregation.
Blacks often got the same pay as whites anon on top of not being anti-union.>there’s proof of black migration propaganda distributed to southern blacks
And you autisically focus on that despite most black moving north due to other reasons.
segregation, indentured servitude, convict leasing, an increase in the spread of racist ideology, threat of lynching and lack of social and economic opportunities in the South. We al lahve proof of these factors pressuring Blacks to go north. -
Source?
-
I’m not the anon you replied to. I only know anecdotal evidence from the top of my head.
The book 40 years inside the Soviet Union is about a guy who leaves 1920s Detroit partly because of racism.
He has a lot of negative things to say of the Soviet Union, but he insists that in the USA his skill and labour as a mechanical engineer wouldn’t have been as fairly recognised because of his colour.
His engineering skills made significant contributions to the efficiency of factories in wartime Russia. To the point of being recognised for an award.
-
We literally made laws to limit immigration during that era. The first one was literally called the Emergency Quota Act because of how pressing an issue it seemed.
-
Because the bourgeoisie are born traitors.
-
-
What damage? What propaganda?
-
Blacks in the south were constantly blasted with propaganda from blacks in the north pre-civil rights about how life in the north was a black Utopia. They were printing fliers and everything. One of their goals was to weaken the recovering southern industrial base
-
Do you think people had internet back then? Or that poor farmhands or sharecroppers could read newspapers from the other side of the country?
-
>they could read
lol okay, most of the time the ones that could read were exaggerating the already false promises of the north and telling the blacks that couldn’t read about it. black are very prominent gossipers -
And what makes it less probable that they wouldn’t be attracted by the higher wages and less formal social and political restrictions? The Southern US wasn’t so urbanized or industrialized at that time. Many areas still didn’t have roads or electricity, let alone factories or manufacturing plants.
-
How did southern blacks know about supposed northern wages, hmm?
-
The same way that city boys in the East heard about the discovery of gold on the other side of the continent almost a century earlier, I’d guess. Or how Italian peasants and Russian refugees heard about a safe, wealthy country on the other side of the world.
-
And how’s that?
-
Are you playing dumb?
-
I feel like you are dumb, or black, considering how I have to hold your freaking hand to even get you to think.
-
Because you can’t understand that history isn’t just a conspiracy?
-
Would you like me to refrain the question that you refuse to answer? Will that make it easier for you you freaking scrotebrain? You actual braindead baboon?
-
Do you need everything spoonfed to you? Or are you implying there’s something wrong with the idea that people can hear of economic opportunity and make decisions for themselves?
-
Listen scrotebrain, I’m just asking you to put two and two together. You yourself said that black southerners were mostly illiterate, which is true. So how the fuck did they get the idea that they all needed to move to the north at the same time? You already halfway answered the question by talking about how word of the gold rush spread
-
It didn’t occur at the same time. It happened in two waves, each lasting for decades.
-
Answer the question you stupid scrote
-
you’re talking to a sophist
-
I’m simply stating historical facts about black history, the problem is when you lay out all the chips it doesn’t add up to the basic bitch understanding that the other anon is so religiously dedicated to.
-
Welcome to LULZ, not sure what to say asides from this site died long ago?
-
-
-
-
Family, having to deal with traveling in the South, fear of those policies moving north, wanting to remove a system that is hurting people.
-
Because while you can ignore bad shit happening on the other side of the world, it’s another thing entirely to go "lol not my problem" when it’s happening to your fellow countrymen.
-
I guarantee you the integrated blacks in the north didn’t give two shits about blacks in the south.
-
Yet they often supported them. You forget that many Northern Black still had ties to the South.
-
Who’s "they"?
-
-
-
-
>which begs the question why people have empathy
Because we are social organisms that have evolved to care about the needs of our fellows. This is also why white people opposed Jim Crow. Segregation was shit, the people demanding it were shit, the people enforcing it were shit, and protecting the innocent from that shit is the moral and ethical thing to do.
-
-
Why was a Brooklyn garden gnome creating segregated communities in the north?
-
because not every garden gnomes is alike. there’s als othe reality that segregating the housing would have been one either way if he din’t do it through ways like Home Owners Associations, redlining an the fact that many Blacks were excluded from things like the GI Bill or other government backed measures for housing
-
>it would have happened even if I didn’t do it
>I was only following orders
this excuse does not work for anyone who isn’t gnomish-
No on is saying that he was in the right.
>there’s als othe reality that segregating the housing would have been one either way if he din’t do it through ways like Home Owners Associations, redlining an the fact that many Blacks were excluded from things like the GI Bill or other government backed measures for housing
if you bothered to read it said that regardless of that garden gnome segregating the houses , segregation would have been one by HOA, banks and the fact that the GI bill excluded Blacks.-
>fight for a country which segregates you against a country which praises this segregation as the right idea
>Olympic athlete literal says he was treated better in that country than he was back home
>Hehehe I know what I will do I will fight for this country that has made it abundantly clear they don’t want me aroundyou have no right to complain. you shouldn’t have fought. the war was pointless anyway. what did it accomplish, saving the same ethnicty as expanded enforced segregation rather than just economic segregation, and literally formed organizations to defend themselves from defamation when their entire legal defense involved defaming an entire race into appearing as if they are inherently violent
-
>Treat you like shit because you are inferior and worthless and less then a white man
>Don’t actively participate in society around you because you can’t just avoid it it will find you and force you participate whether you want to our not
>See what did I tell you! Them scrotes are no good
Fuck you -
What the fuck were you expecting? The only winning move was not to play and yet you still fought in the war. Somehow you engaged in a mutiny in Australia while LBJ was in town. To me this sounds like both sides were being incredibly scrotebrained for even recruiting you in the first place, and you were scrotebrained for signing up. What were either of you expecting was going to happen?
-
>Somehow you engaged in a mutiny in Australia while LBJ was in town
Only 1 guy was killed you hysteric. Calm yourself -
What was American command even thinking letting blacks into the war? Especially what the hell were they thinking letting them into the Japanese theatre of the war when the Japanese were actively recruiting them with their role in the founding of the Nation of Islam.
What was anyone expecting was going to happen? Neither side has any right to complain about this whole shit show. Nobody should have even tried to get them involved.
-
Blacks we’re usually just truck drivers and shit
-
sheeit
-
Better than choking on your blood at Normandy
-
Their roles varied a lot.
>Black POW’s in the German camps were treated much worse than their other peers
That people didn’t like them doesn’t change how they were classified,>you are defending Nazi’s
I’m clarifying your blatantly incorrect statement by comparing black treatment by the Nazis to their treatment of slavs, garden gnomes, and roma. We aren’t talking about merely being mistreated here because some people didn’t like them. It was official policy to eliminate those groups. The Nazis were known for Explicit Racism, of course non-policy racism still exists even when policy racism exists, but you can’t put them into the same category.>It was official policy to eliminate those groups. The Nazis were known for Explicit Racism, of course non-policy racism still exists even when policy racism exists, but you can’t put them into the same category.
And Blacks were on the chopping block when and if they got numerous. State ideology already designated them a bad status -
>And Blacks were on the chopping block when and if they got numerous. State ideology already designated them a bad status
State ideology designated them non-Aryan, same as Arabs who were good friends with them for obvious reasons -
>Olympic athlete literal says he was treated better in that country than he was back home
If he stayed any longer his ass would have been roasted. Blacks in Germany still got targeted and Black Germans experienced discrimination in employment, welfare, and housing, and were also barred from pursuing a higher education.They were socially isolated and forbidden to have sexual relations and marriages with Aryans by the racial laws. Black people were placed at the bottom of the racial scale of non-Aryans along with garden gnomes, Slavs, and Romani/Roma people so inevitably they would he been culled
-
>Black people were placed at the bottom of the racial scale of non-Aryans along with garden gnomes, Slavs, and Romani/Roma people so inevitably they would he been culled
This is incorrect. Black were non-aryan such as Arabs for instance (and originally Japanese until the realities of the war made them reclassify them), but they weren’t classified as Untermenchen such as Slavs, garden gnomes, and Roma -
>Black were non-aryan such as Arabs for instance (and originally Japanese until the realities of the war made them reclassify them), but they weren’t classified as Untermenchen such as Slavs, garden gnomes, and Roma
They were anon. Half-Black kids were sterilized and Black POW’s in the German camps were treated much worse than their other peers which says something about the Nazis’. you are defending Nazi’s
-
They were sterilized under the same program that sterilized everybody. It was actually illegal under Nazi law to do what they did as that wasn’t how it was supposed to work which suggests the initiative came from below.
>Black POW’s in the German camps were treated much worse than their other peers
That people didn’t like them doesn’t change how they were classified,>you are defending Nazi’s
I’m clarifying your blatantly incorrect statement by comparing black treatment by the Nazis to their treatment of slavs, garden gnomes, and roma. We aren’t talking about merely being mistreated here because some people didn’t like them. It was official policy to eliminate those groups. The Nazis were known for Explicit Racism, of course non-policy racism still exists even when policy racism exists, but you can’t put them into the same category.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Man thinks murder matters, at all. Roflmao. Crackers kill scrotes scrotes kill cracker scrotes kills scrote cracker cracker cracker
-
This is 100% revisionism.
-
-
-
It was kickstarted by the death of Emmett Till
-
Black people had been trying to do it since the 1860s. For example, black people temporarily got the New Orleans streetcar system desegregated from 1867 to 1892, but then Jim Crow came in and closed it down again.
What changed is that the post-WW2 political system was more amenable to federal progress on civil rights, because the Nazis had kind of discredited racial ideologies.
-
Well they hadn’t “discredited” them si much as demonstrated they weren’t Good For The garden gnomes.
-
>racial supremacist ideology completely destroys a major country
>other countries start to dislike racial supremacist ideologiesno real mystery behind it
-
Okay but like the garden gnomes were segregationists before this. The anti-defmation league was founded when a white jury wanted to prosecute a gnomish factory foreman over the black janitor. If you had read something like To Kill A Mocking Bird the idea that a white jury wouldn’t automatically prosecute a black man just for existing was anathema to the Jim Crow South, and yet here we had the jury trying to prosecute the rich white gnomish man instead. They eventually managed to get him acquitted at higher courts but the locals insisted he was guilty and lynched the factory superintendent.
The anti-defamation league was founded in response to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank
We can very clearly see that before the world wars the garden gnomes were leaning heavily into segregation and were offended that people would prosecute one of them over a black person. The defense clearly tried to paint the janitor as these stereotype of a violent black person was the other side was painted him as a jolly uncle tom figure who just found the body lying there was he was trying to do his job.
The segregated suburbs in Levittown were also made by a gnomish guy, so it was not even immediately after the war that this change occurred, rather there was an internal struggle where the anti-segregation garden gnomes eventually won out.
-
And inb4 James Baldwin’s complaints about how garden gnomes ran everything in Harlem and considered blacks to be suboids who existed only to make money off of.
-
-
-
God you are so ridiculously dumb. Your brain mush from being online too much
-
The Nazis killed more than just garden gnomes, you freaking brainlet
-
-
>What changed is that the post-WW2 political system was more amenable to federal progress on civil rights
yes
>because the Nazis had kind of discredited racial ideologies.
no
It was because the New Deal rapidly expanded federal power at the expense of state sovereignty. Once the federal legislature and executive had a taste of that power they only wanted to expand it.-
>It was because the New Deal rapidly expanded federal power at the expense of state sovereignty. Once the federal legislature and executive had a taste of that power they only wanted to expand it.
Lol States often interfered or bonked over New Deal polices like the Jim Crow states scudding Blacks and others Hispanics.-
LBJ made the South a bunch of sweetheart deals for getting rid of Jim Crow. Since he was a Southern Democrat, they would listen to him while they wouldn’t listen to a northern Democrat or a Republican.
-
like what
-
-
-
-
-
gnomish subversion. Wanted to use the negro as muscle against the goyium. Was a failure, so they moved onto scrotes as a revolutionary agent.
-
Polchud cope
-
the famous "I have a dream" speech was ghost written by garden gnome Stanley Levison
if you tried any of this civil rights stuff in Israel you’d get killed by the mossad
-
>if you tried any of this civil rights stuff in Israel you’d get killed by the mossad
No you wouldn’t. First of all, Mossad deals with foreign intelligence and operations. Domestic security is the domain of the police and Shin Beit. Second of all, Israel has a tradition of liberalism and opposition to racism. David Ben-Gurion, the first head of state, supported equal rights for Arabs and garden gnomes.-
>David Ben-Gurion, the first head of state, supported equal rights for Arabs and garden gnomes.
Read: I support garden gnomes having the same rights as Arabs in their homeland. Arabs need to stop being racist towards us and let us live here. This is like saying an immigrants rights organization supports equal rights.-
>Arabs: usuary is immortal according to Sharia law
>garden gnomes: That’s raycist, were going to use our international banker buddies to fund our military to take this land
-
-
-
>if you tried any of this civil rights stuff in Israel you’d get killed by the mossad
Do you even know anything about Israel, you absolute idiot?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/dispel-the-darkness-thousands-of-garden gnomes-and-arabs-rally-for-coexistence/
https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/.premium-arab-citizens-of-israel-show-unprecedented-involvement-in-jerusalem-protests-1.9787513
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/after-gaza-clash-new-solidarity-arises-among-palestinians-11621791183
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2021/05/israel-opt-end-brutal-repression-of-palestinians-protesting-forced-displacement-in-occupied-east-jerusalem/
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/07/1003872848/the-complicated-history-behind-blms-solidarity-with-the-pro-palestinian-movement?t=1632840165814
-
-
-
Is it true he laughed as a friend of his raped someone and he had a bunch of orgies? At the very least it seems like he did have affairs.
-
No & no.
-
-
Black people were able to make more grounds after WWII because America simply couldn’t claim to be a beacon of freedom opposing communist oppression while literally oppressing its own citizens.
-
And the communists exploited this belief for all it was worth, that’s where there were a lot of black communists around at the time because at least that side was promsing you wouldn’t be second-class citizens under their system. Whether it was a lie or not doesn’t matter, America sure as shit wasn’t promising them anything.
-
-
Depends on when you actually think the civil rights movement started. There’s a common theme with civil rights where people are collectively trying to change the narrative and push the dates further and further back.
-
>There’s a common theme with civil rights where people are collectively trying to change the narrative and push the dates further and further back.
That how history works. The oldest bong in the world was found in Ethiopia 1300 CE but a few years later one was found dating to 2400 years ago in Russia much further back. For stuff like this when a thing starts or ends is fluid. WW1 only completely ended when Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck surrendered in East Africa on November 25.-
They’re not digging up freaking tablets of US legislation from the 1920’s anon
-
-
-
Black people had been unhappy with their living situation before the 1950s and 1960s and had been seeking changes and reforms in the country for a long time.
What changed in the 1950 was, one, the peace and prosperity through most of the country – you didn’t have a global depression or war as a more pressing issue. Two, there was much more significant interconnection between different regions of the country, so conditions in the South became more of an issue for white liberals in the North. Three, blacks had been building institutions and movements and making incremental progress for decades and eventually that adds up.
-
This is the correct answer.
-
Best answer
-
it’s an incorrect answer
blacks are very individualistic, they didn’t collectivize they were collectivized for. It’s similar to how it was with BLM, there were blacks involved but it was primarily driven by garden gnomes/government/media.
-
-
-
Spent enough time gathering our strength
-
It had been happening for a long time you are too stupid to know this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement_(1896%E2%80%931954) -
The modernizationm and industrialization of the south causing blacks to move from the rural environments to cities, which led to racial tensions and inevitable anti-segregation movements.
-
By that point the great migration had taken place and there were blacks in more than just the south. This stopped the Civil rights movement from being a southern regional issue to a national one which ended up catching people’s attention.
That said, there was always a civil rights movement prior to the 60’s, but the newly created mass media also allowed for these events to be televised and brought to everyone’s attention. -
Emancipation and civil rights have been topics since the first slave came here. If you’re asking why things changed the way they did, when they did, it’s because the USSR was using it to hammer us internationally and trying to foment insurrection.
At the time the South was still loyally Democrat, so Eisenhower didn’t care politically and Kennedy was trying to avoid breaking them up, but the white South was hell bent on causing problems over it. LBJ by all accounts was a true believer and the Republicans swept in and started taking over the South.
We’re still fighting the same battle and we probably always will. Reconstruction should have never ended.
-
First time the republican had enough control of the congress to force it
Dems filibustered, then realized they couldn’t win, so 1/2 gave in and the rest turned to wallace.
Southern Strategy is complete BS, btw
-
>First time the republican had enough control of the congress to force it
They didn’t. The Democrat Party was absolutely solidly in control of Congress when the CRA passed. What happened instead was an alliance of northern liberal Democrats and Republicans that overcame Dixiecrat opposition.
-
-
It happened after the american civil war.
They were essentially asking the southern states to abide by the legal regulations of the reconstruction period.
-
>Why did the civil rights movement start when it did?
It did, but the Post WWII world made it clear that America couldn’t be racist as it just fought Nazi Germany-
The only race Hitler hated was the garden gnomes because they had just finished genociding tens of millions in Russia and now had a foothold in the German communist party. The garden gnomes were also globalist bankers trying to absorb Germany into the Marxist cult.
Germany was allied with Japan and parts of north Africa as well.
Saying the Nazzies were raycist is a Netflix meme. As nationalists they just wanted each culture to have their own space…which, ironically, is what many of the American blacks wanted as well.-
>they just hated the garden gnomes (totally not slavs and romanis ^_^)
>they totally weren’t racist guise it’s a leftist meme
>just wanted a safe white space:)
do a flip when you jump you inbred waste of space-
>Doesn’t disprove any points
Go back to Reddlt lad, adults are speaking.
-
-
-
-
>Why did the civil rights movement start when it did?
The tragic part about education is that it often doesn’t give a wholistic view of almost any historical topic and civil rights are one of them. To answer your question civil rights started long before what we perceive it to be. Civil rights in the context of massive amounts of African Americans making large political movements for the end of the legislative system of jim crow had begun right after WW1 WEB Du Bois talks about this in his work "Returning Soldiers"
https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/21-world-war-i/w-e-b-dubois-returning-soldiers-may-1919/
African Americans often have spurts of movements towards equal rights in a post-war society. This is true even in the aftermath of the civil war when African Americans actually acquired a large amount of political power but were forced to plead to union soldiers to help them maintain these rights in the deep south in their work "The Late Convention of Colored Men"
https://www.nytimes.com/1865/08/13/archives/the-late-convention-of-colored-men-address-to-the-loyal-citizens-of.html
So it began MUCH earlier than what most schools teach but I understand it would be exhaustive to state that civil rights that we knew was a movement that always existed.
> Why were Black people unhappy with their living situation at that moment? And why didn’t it happen earlier?
So the reason why they were unhappy was because of a lesser known aspect of jim crow today. People understand the different bathrooms, schools, etc. But the point of JIm Crow wasn’t just to separate the two groups but to make it so that when whites interacted with blacks. African Americans always lost which explains the need to be rid of the system
>Popular Points
There is some talk about how African Americans didn’t want to associate or integrate. This is a half truth in the best sense of the word.
>Cont.-
The true part of this is that there are solid African American cities and communities sure and these are insular areas which makes logical sense. Can’t get discriminated against cause your black by someone who isn’t black if you live in a 99.999% black place. The part where this becomes a HALF truth and as a result, a lie is the notion that because these are strong black communities during segregation they therefore DONT want integration. If you get the chance to ask any elderly black person about segregation it would be insane to assume they say that it was better and preferable to integrated American (quick piece of anecdotal evidence. They don’t believe that. The only African Americans who unironically talk about integration as a negative are freaking zoomers that read 1 book on theory and think they understand how black spaces work)
African Americans have always in a way strode for civil rights but the videoed MLK civil rights that we think of occurred due to a large shift in thought as a result of the end of wartime and still returning to Jim Crow (so much so that some actually stayed in Europe) and a particular instance of this is the denial of G.I. bills towards African Americans after ww2
-
-
>103 posts
>so far no one has mentioned that the Federal government felt pressured by nonstop communist propaganda about Jim Crow
>that in the communist bloc they were always running newsreel footage of police beating up civil rights demonstrators-
Your first mistake was thinking the average scrotebrain defending blacks has the slightest clue about geopolitics
-
People have being criticizing Jim Crows for ages. Way before commies or soviets were a thing.
-
American citizens didn’t care what Russia was saying.
-
Someone already brought that up. The whole ‘and you’re lynching negroes’ response to American criticism was only half of it though. The other half was the legitimate fear that excluding huge chunks of the population from mainstream society would encourage them to support communism.
-
Well the main issue with that propaganda is that the communists were right.
-
Everybody forgets that the main thing communists were doing was outside of the US. actual communists didn’t give a shit about black people. They like that blacks got lynched in the US because when they brought third world countries to the label that they wanted to bring under their wing they could use that to basically threaten them into soviet submission by implying that was what was going to happen to them if the dealt with the US instead of them. Even though of course, most of it was lies. But every good lie has an ounce of truth.
But that’s probably way over 99% of people’s heads
-
Soviets didn’t need to bring up Jim Crow to convince African leaders to take their side. They would just need to bring up what happened to Patrice Lumumba.
-
It wasn’t just Africans, it was everybody. Every time the Russians would deal with anybody they would plant a seed of doubt in them that the US was a racist empire that would hang them all.
-
Or they’d just point to the multiple times the US or its allies had been hostile to developing countries seeking independence or growth. There’s a long list of those.
-
We’re talkign about civil rights leftoid, stop trying to change the subject. The USSR going around and telling everybody that the US was going to lynch them is largely what lead to state sponsored civil rights
-
>The USSR going around and telling everybody that the US was going to lynch them is largely what lead to state sponsored civil rights
Not really the case. There’s also the reality that trying to ally with other nations yet having a state that actively discriminated against them looked real bad. Soviets didn’t have to do much to make Yanks look bad.-
It is the case, it’s pretty well documented if you look for it. Having the two world powers playing tug of war with the third world gave them quite a bit of pull themselves in the United Nations, which is why "universal human rights" is a thing (which doesn’t apply to third world countries because they still rely on slavery and the like).
-
>third world countries because they still rely on slavery and the like
2nd and 1st world still do as well.
-
-
-
I didn’t change the subject. You claimed that Russians were telling Africans that Americans would hang them all. Think for a second; had foreign diplomats or visitors from Africa been lynched before? Would they even be likely to visit a part of the US where lynchings occurred at the time (backwards parts of the South)? On the other hand, would leaders of newly independent countries be interested in building alliances with nations that at least seemed to respect them and were willing to work with them as more than just cheap sources of resources or pawns? Look at what happened in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the early 60s. Intelligence services from Belgium, the UK, and the US had helped a colonel with political ambitions overthrow elected nationalist leader Patrice Lumumba (later tortured and executed and postmortem dissolved in sulfuric acid so nobody would find him). Other Western powers weren’t innocent either. British authorities overthrew Ghana’s founding father Kwame Nkrumah after he tried to win his country economic independence. France had fought an incredibly bitter, bloody war for 8 years to keep Algeria as a colony. The US would have had an obvious reason to try and win the respect of African peoples.
-
I never mentioned africans, you mentioned africans. Then you started reading off your list of complaints on why the west is racist. Nobody cares leftoid.
-
>It wasn’t just Africans, it was everybody. Every time the Russians would deal with anybody they would plant a seed of doubt in them that the US was a racist empire that would hang them all.
-
You mentioned Africans first, are you not the most autistic scrote on this board right now?
-
>They like that blacks got lynched in the US because when they brought third world countries to the label that they wanted to bring under their wing they could use that to basically threaten them into soviet submission by implying that was what was going to happen to them if the dealt with the US instead of them.
-
It’s not my fault you immediately associate the third world with Africa, are you racist or something? That would be a novel concept considering you’re a commie larper
-
I mentioned Africa because it’s what’s relevant. What continent saw almost all of its people become citizens of their own sovereign countries in the early 60s (17 countries in 1960 alone)? Africa. What kind of people would presumably feel threatened by the "threats" you claimed the USSR was warning about?
-
The third world
why are you so fixated on Africa? I don’t care to hear you kvetch about colonialism -
Then why did you mention third world countries c. 1960 if you didn’t want to hear about it? Why did you bring up Soviets talking to third world countries with warnings about American racism?
-
Maybe because not everybody here is a communist and doesn’t want to hear the propaganda for the 1000th time?
-
Why do you think I’m a communist and that everything I say is propaganda? Is it not true that Africa saw many countries gain independence in that time and that the US had historically interfered in third world countries, not just in Africa but elsewhere?
-
It’s an easy American insult. Uneducated Americans who can’t differentiate will just call someone a communist to discredit/assume they win the argument.
>muh commie
>muh turning this country into Venezuela
>muh propaganda
>muh -
Actually it’s obvious post truth Marxism that is easy to spot. Y’all are unoriginal cultists that use sophistry and the same tired bumper sticker talking points and lack any form of critical thinking ability
-
bc u commy
-
Because you’re replying to me with propaganda and not even addressing my original point like a communist. You know "whataboutism"? The thing communists do? You’re pretty stupid
-
I’ll ask again. What did I say that was propaganda? What did I say that was irrelevant to your earlier claim?
-
>I addressed what you were saying by spewing communist propaganda
Great Civil Rights thread -
I’ll ask once more. What did I say that was propaganda?
-
A soon as your brain was forced to think you fell back on the age old "everything wrong with black people is actually white people’s fault" because actually investigating the civil rights narrative is not why you opened this thread
-
What did I say that was wrong?
-
Well you defended the soviet union
-
I didn’t say they were totally right. They and their allies gave aid to third world countries that needed help but were refused it from the West. That doesn’t excuse that Soviet foreign policy also included interventions that killed millions of people.
-
>i support the soviets and their ideals but that doesn’t mean I’m a communist
lol okay -
What did I say that was communist?
-
Can you shut the fuck up and have a nice day?
-
Butthurt detected
-
He literally said he doesn’t agree with them entirely. Why do you have to jump to extreme conclusions?
-
>I completely agree with them except for the genocide part
Meaning he’s the generic Lenin/Trotskyist that desperately hold onto communism because they’re some kind of genetic anomaly and want free gibs -
You’re jumping to conclusions. We get it you took a polsci class in college. For example: someone could find German banking ideas on interest rates from the 1930s – 1940s beneficial without being an extremist Nazi scrotebrain. Same way someone could advocate for free healthcare without being a full on communist scrotebrain.
-
Interjecting that Russia’s involvement in the Civil Rights should be forgotten because "surely they were doing it for the greater good because I studied political science" is pretty suspicious
-
didnt ask
-
Propaganda is propaganda. There is no greater good in it. It’s essentially always for the benefit of those creating it. I just don’t recall anyone denying propaganda in the Civil War. I’m sure there was plenty. That doesn’t mean ideas can’t naturally sprout in a country’s own population without it being propaganda.
-
Soviet Propaganda is woke af on a logical fallacy though, they were extremely hypocritical themselves. If the pursuit of equality is fueled by these nonsensical beliefs it’s still communist
-
No I meant in the U.S. I’m sure plenty of ideas during the Civil War sprouted naturally and spread naturally alongside plenty of propaganda, both foreign and from parties within.
-
"spreading naturally" doesn’t make communist beliefs not communist
-
He already addressed your point you fat subhuman mutt
-
-
-
-
-
-
>
Well African diplomats and representatives having to deal with racism when in the US did sour a lot of potential friendships pretty bad.-
Virginia had segregation. This was a big issue for black diplomats visiting DC. Good luck making friends with a guy after he couldn’t get a hotel room for being the wrong color.
-
-
-
-
-
>so far no one has mentioned that the Federal government felt pressured by nonstop communist propaganda about Jim Crow
1. Literally everyone that opposed the United States talks about Jim Crow. We can find german letters from ww1 (and ww2 if I’m not mistaken) asking why black people would fight for a country that oppresses them saying "lol they did it to stop the commies" is taking a magnifying glass to an issue and believing the view is the real size
-
-
[…]
I mean this is a pretty reductionist and borderline ahistorical take tbh. Large amounts of African Americans organized and took sizable amounts of political power in the post slavery south
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress#History_of_black_representation
(The section on reconstruction and redemption
Furthermore, their actions were very numerous without these borderline riots
https://blog.gale.com/asserting-equality-black-political-activism-during-reconstruction/
Lastly the sheer size of these organizations is truly massive at least for the time (I know the source is basic tier but it most effectively talks about the point
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/black-leaders-during-reconstruction-
How was reconstruction black activism? They were literally herded around like cattle by northerners
-
>They were literally herded around like cattle by northerners
I mean I’m sure that this statement has some level of truth there was a large amount of monetary control that came from notherners but these large groups of African Americans were southern republicans and while a small amount of them was on the national level a large portion of them were locally focused. The reconstruction that you specifically may be referring to is more than likely after this period with the installation of black codes which essentially reversed a large amount of the activism that you see. I understand where you’re coming from but it’s kind of a bad argument to assume that this entire historical period was just the result of northerners. Secondly, we’re approaching close to false dichotomy territory where either its an entirely African American movement or its white northerner control. Becasue truth be told with any movement involving activism regardless of ethnicity or whatever the group that’s being affected by the issue is never the only group involved. So the fact that northerners are present doesn’t directly negate the actions of African Americans but I understand your perspective-
>southern black republicans
Yugo mean the people that were telling blacks that they’re all deadbeat losers that need to work for themselves?-
So i definitely see where you’re coming from and you have somewhat of a point but the rhetoric and ideologies of republicans then and now are different. The reason why African Americans at this time were overwhelmingly republican was because the democrats at this time were heavily in favor of black codes and the political degradation of black political power at the time. And we can see that this is true with the advocacies and voting actions that was taken at the time so in a "real politik" lense of who do you side with, African Americans were somewhat heavily incentivized to side with republicans (not to refer to them as a monolith in any way)
-
The black republican faction in the south were the "by your own bootstrap" types. Only after Booker T Washington’s death, the leading black Republican, did blacks politically abandon the quest of self improvement. This marks the beginning of Civil Rights by Du Bois who sought a political end to black people’s proposed inequalities
-
I mean you’re right i don’t want to seem like I’m arguing with you in that regard and I’m somewhat familiar with the differences and disagreements between the two individuals in the movement. I was just giving an explanation of why it would be that African Americans would align themselves with the republicans
-
It’s definitely the case that reconstruction era blacks were coerced by the north to vote for them. Post reconstruction when the north abandoned them some noteworthy blacks floated to the top like Washington. The problem was this movement was immediately shut down by idpol after his death and lead to the Great Migrations.
-
-
Dangerously woke af. This was funded by billionaires to force white/black conflict and debase any chance for blacks to join with whites against the budding globalist cartels…news flash the globalists won and blacks somehow think democrats ever gave a shit about bringing them out of poverty.
-
-
-
-
[…]
I mean this is a pretty reductionist and borderline ahistorical take tbh. Large amounts of African Americans organized and took sizable amounts of political power in the post slavery south
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress#History_of_black_representation
(The section on reconstruction and redemption
Furthermore, their actions were very numerous without these borderline riots
https://blog.gale.com/asserting-equality-black-political-activism-during-reconstruction/
Lastly the sheer size of these organizations is truly massive at least for the time (I know the source is basic tier but it most effectively talks about the point
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/black-leaders-during-reconstructionHow do you read about this? I’m pretty sure DuBois wrote a book about Reconstruction, but I don’t know much else about the books on these subjects.
-
It’s pretty much impossible without the author trying to program you
-
So unfortunately i don’t know any large books on the subject because the way I learned about it was directly through primary sources cause I’m a history major (it has its pros and its cons) so while its not the most accessible it is free of the risk of bias and makes it so that random people can’t link a book then lie about it. Conveniently though the primary sources for this period are gonna be shorter than books themselves. However I do have a few sites that might come in handy
>Library of Congress
This is probably the best source for general research so if you want a jumping-off point this would be the best point
>Spartacus Eduactional
This one is very general and I’ve personally hit some end of the road pages when I get real specific but its still very good as an overview on any particular topic
Those are a few that should give some very solid groundwork-
Bookmarked. Thanks!
-
-
-
-
-
-
It had nothing to do with living situation and everything to do with acquiring government welfare and the introduction of ‘african studies’ into the universities.
-
It was always going on even before the civil war. It for the energy it did, because blacks came back from Europe and saw that they were more welcomed there than in the US (see the battle if bamber bridge). It was hard for many to reconcile the lofty political talk we used for WWI and especially WWII while segregation and Jim Crow was happening. Look at US WWII propaganda. It was highly anti-racism, anti-White supremacist, etc.
There’s a reason why the first 2 post war presidents pushed for civil rights: Truman desegregates the armed forces and Eisenhower pushes for desegregation of schools
-
The communist bloc didn’t have a lot else they could use as leverage against the United States; they certainly couldn’t win in economics or HDI.
-
Post war times left the garden gnomes in a advantage situation.
-
>Why did the civil rights movement start when it did?
Because the US couldn’t keep up the pretense of slandering the USSR as "evil dictatorial oppressors" while simultaneously being evil, dictatorial and oppressive towards black people within their own borders.-
Rather, the soviets were pure evil, they could just afford to lie because their entire country was run by the communist party
-
-
Why does this board attract so many white homos that will spend hours lying to defend scrotes? At least Nazis lie to support their own interests.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.