How Baltimore invented neighborhood segregation

A lot has been written about Baltimore recently, but the most insightful commentary often comes from people who are not directly addressing the news. Back in 2010, Antero Pietila wrote Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City about Baltimore (h/t Tyler Cowen). The shaping was not subtle. Indeed, with a 1910 residential segregation ordinance passed by the City Council, Charm City literally invented the idea of legally enforcing neighborhood-level segregation:

There is much more in the book. But suffice it to say that once you corral a minority group into a confined geographical space, you don't follow that up by providing the space in question with first-rate parks, excellent schools, top-notch police service, useful transportation infrastructure, and high-impact neighborhood business development projects.

A growing body of research indicates that access to quality transportation is a key neighborhood-level determinant of upward mobility. But it's not some kind of cosmic coincidence that it's often the heavily African-American neighborhoods where this doesn't exist. The ghetto was a deliberate policy invention, and investing in a path out of it would have been completely contrary to the point of creating it.

Are the authors suggesting blacks can not thrive unless they are among whites? Sounds like it to me.

It is more a case of a formerly oppressed minority cannot thrive unless, upon emancipation, they adopt an attitude of unity with the mainstream and have access to the public resources of the majority, regardless of color or background. That is why some of the first civil rights to be passed were for things like riding on trains and buses, eating in restaurants and staying in hotels, so that persons could travel to work or see family members. Today it is more about commuting, necessary services within reach, etc.

And in order to have equality, those formerly oppressed must not only have education, but must also take advantage of that education, making an effort to learn and adopt a mainstream ethos, basic ethics being color-blind. Persons from many, many others countries, cultures, languages and habits have come here and assimilated, adopting English and learning to fit into a system based on JudeoChristian social values. Sadly, the race victim class rejects those values and derides them as "acting white", instead of doing as other minorities have done to learn the mainstream ropes for work and civil participation, while still enjoying their ethnic heritage in community centers and festivals without seeking to impose it as mandatory for the majority. In exchange, the American mainstream absorbs and adopts a wide range of cultural gems from cuisines, apparel and music from around the world, including specifically African-American influences.

Sadly, when a neighborhood starts self-branding as a place that repudiates the mainstream and brands it racist ("acting white"), excuses crime, enables drug abuse and encourages sex without marriage as a way to gain welfare status (so that the resulting fatherless children are culturally and emotionally impoverished), businesses and services start to go away or stay away and stop attempting to reach out to that neighborhood, in no small part because of crime against small businesses. Taxis don't want to take people there or pick them up. Police response may be slow. And a downward spiral then starts to escalate.

Behavior really does have consequences.

The very best thing any community can do for itself is to adopt and enforce within itself the "family standard" — children need a mother and a father, and both sexes should be taught to defer gratification, and to prepare themselves for a future as a married breadwinner and homemaker able to provide for their children, since their own choices are their own responsibility, including choices that lead to having children. The work ethic built this country. It cannot continue to survive without it.

Slavery in its many forms. In the beginning it was with whips and changes, today it is more subtle but it is there nonetheless.

Your point here is so unbalanced, so underinformed and so distorted, where to begin?

First, there is plenty of slavery still today around the world.

The U.S. now has millions in economic slavery in the form of allowing illegal immigrants into this country to perform hard labor in ways that are not accruing security for the person or their family. This is done by the political elite for the benefit of a small percent of business owners and corrupt politicians. Democrat legislators, Democrat voters and many Republican legislators are largely responsible for this phenomenon, and they use many of the same arguments that were used in the 1800s, but have now added emotion-laden excuses to try to trick the populace into believing it is not what it is.

Then you have sexual slavery of adults and children. Again, Democrats who have continually voted for a "liberal" agenda concerning sex and sexuality have contributed to the development and marketing over the media of a large black market in illicit sexual exploitation and enslavement.

As for the past slave labor, it was outlawed in the U.S. more than 150 years ago; as well, it was never accepted uniformly in the various states of the Union, with most of the original states except the agriculture-based southern states outlawing it, providing for freedman status after an indenture, or other legal modifications. Then, the U.S. fought a Civil War from 1861-1865 to end the practice completely, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of the lives of young white men (as well as a smaller percentage of black men) in the cause of ending this practice and subduing the southern states. Like the corporate owners of today who are exploiting illegal aliens or victims of the sex exploitation trades, those who actually owned slaves were a small percentage of all Americans, but they had the wealth and power to prolong slavery until the bloody sacrifices of poor and middle-class whites to end this situation.

Further, many generations of whites either never had any slaveholders in their backgrounds, or are the descendents of families who immigrated legally to the U.S. after slavery was ended, and even after segregation was legally ended; yet the racism-mongers of today wish to hold every non-black person equally guilty for a past over which they have no control and in which their ancestors did not participate, except perhaps to fight against it.

The period of segregation and open bias against blacks was similarly fought piecemeal in the various states from the end of the Civil War in 1865 for the following century, with Republicans leading the fight for Civil Rights and Democrats vigorously and viciously resisting for 100 years, until the Federal Treasury had recovered enough for Democrats to realize that they could buy the votes of socially oppressed African-Americans for political purposes, and starting with President Lyndon Johnson, who stated his nakedly vote-seeking purpose for doing so, set up programs that would eventually give BILLIONS of dollars to African-Americans in the form of welfare payments, food stamps, childcare, job training and placement clinics, and support for single mothers that completely supplanted the roles and responsibilities of fathers in the lives of those children. The public language of these programs was to give charity, but the underlying motivations must be recognized as "the soft bigotry of low expectations." After five generations of excessive welfare payouts to African-American claimants for social reparations, we continue to see that "giving a man a fish and he will eat for a day" has been the prevailing ethic instead of "teaching a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime", and it has produced an entrenched underclass of persons who now lack the multi-generational famliy life, skills and motivation to work out their destiny without leaning on taxpayer assistance.

I must also point out that the United States was formed in a time when virtually all the world participated in or tolerated slavery in some form, and there has been virtually no major civilization that has been without slavery or that has not had a percentage of its peoples enslaved at some period in history. Many white Europeans were enslaved at one time or another, through warring tribes in Europe itself, or by being captured by muslim slave traders through pirate raids and the many islamist incursions into southern Europe that eventually resulted in the Crusades to try to recapture those lands for Christianity. The English oppressed the Irish (people of Irish ancestry are a larger sub-group in the U.S. than African-Americans) for some 800 years, inflicting starvation and harsh punishments. Yet this squabble, which continued in Europe until around 25 years ago, was attempted in the U.S. but did not succeed. Irish-Americans worked for opportuniites against the prejudices of the earlier English and Dutch settlers and mainstreamed themselves within two generations.

And while not excusing the wrongs done by slave owners in the U.S. in past times, it should be noted that under 7% of persons captured in Africa in the Atlantic slave trade were brought directly to the U.S. Almost 40% went to the Caribbean islands and South American continent to work in plantations there. The formation of the political philosophy of the Founding of the U.S. between the mid-1700s and the mid-1800s actually set alight the torch of freedom and helped all nations to recognize the birthright of all humans as children of God, not chattels of the state. One by one, nations began trying to uphold the ideals of freedom. Like most social change, it does not and cannot happen overnight.

For today's African-descended citizens to continue to point to slavery as a reason for unhappiness and communist revolution here is an exercise in self-destruction. The fight is being waged by people who have never experienced slavery in their own lives or families going back three or more generations. There is no one alive today who was enslaved by race. Fewer and fewer are alive today who even experienced racial segregation. I am old enough to be a great-grandparent, and our school was integrated in the FIRST GRADE.

Billions have been spent in government payouts for welfare and education. Billions more have been spent by private corporations and organizations for affirmative action and outreach programs, including job mentoring and hiring, charities and community programs. Yet, a few persons of color continue to try to live in the past in order to justify a negative outlook.

There is no affirmative action possible in this world that has a chance of succeeding permanently in a person's life outside of the sacrifice on the cross by Jesus Christ, and the peace, reconciliation, forgiveness and courage that come from recognizing His inspiration in one's life. In Christ, we are assured that the truth is known and understood, that many who are first in this life will be last in the next and vice versa, and in accordance with the Jewish prophetic wisdom that gave us the Ten Commandments, covetousness is a sin. It is one of the major sins; yet it is the credo of the Democrat party and the present administration, and all tyrannical governments around the world that wish to divide people in order to conquer them.

America became great by working steadily to innovate, create, solve problems and inspire an ethic of unity and loyalty. When we were formed, slavery was a present reality around the world, but we worked to eliminate chattel slavery and have worked steadily ever since in billions of ways to give others a chance to rise and prosper. Do not let yourself be drawn into the abyss of negativity purposely stirred up to divide and conquer another generation. It will not end well for those who think money is the answer. They could be awarded millions in "reparations" and would likely end up like those lottery winners who blow through their fortune in a few years and end up worse off than when they won the money.

"Your point here is so unbalanced, so underinformed and so distorted, where to begin?"

You come to these conclusions about my unbalanced, uninformed and distorted comments, yet it would appear you have spent a considerable amount of time addressing them. It might appear to the casual observer that perhaps my comments have some truth to them after all? I appreciate your lengthy reply, ironically the information you have provided seems to support my earlier comments.

Although there are those who would argue the fact, the Civil War was fought because of slavery, a form of judgement upon the nation, if you will. The problem stemming from that conflict is that as a nation, we quickly forgot the moral lesson that it taught.

The following is offered as an explanation of the thought process of those blacks being manipulated by racist agitators:

The argument, explanation, or excuse proffered by white people today, that they never owned slaves simply serves to ignore the fact that whites in America benefited and have continued to benefit from a system that was designed to benefit white people at the expense of non-whites. Slavery has been abolished for over 150 years, this is true. So now, we should all pretend that things are better, but the facts tell us that something is horribly wrong in this society.

Blacks are not in chains and have received generous hand outs (free-stuff) from whites. I mean, that should be enough to pay for the mistakes of the past, right? But the blacks want more, they want to punish whitey for living so well, while they have had to settle for crumbs. /end

In the meantime the general public is being played like a cheap fiddle by the media, with the political atmosphere being so racially charged that it won't be long before there is open warfare in our streets.

I really don't see anything in your comments that I would disagree with, which causes me to question from where stems your vehemence towards my comments?

My point is quite simple; we cannot have an equitable society without morality, and until we take to heart the moral standards that helped to found this nation, we will continue to suffer.

I took a lot of time to refute your statements, and you think that is evidence that your assertions are true? Amazing.

I appreciate your lengthy reply, ironically the information you have provided seems to support my earlier comments.

Again, you look at my words denying your words and find agreement????

You say that the CW was fought because of slavery, and believe this is somehow new information? Truly, I'm astonished.

As for a judgment upon a nation, God is the judge, not mankind. I realize many people would like to make sweeping, dramatic assumptions about what God's opinion is, but that doesn't mean He has actually confided in them. He has already conquered this world. It is for individuals to recognize that judgment is His.

And my friend, my entire long rebuttal to your assumption above that "we quickly forgot the moral lesson" of the Civil War could not be more wrong. Everything I wrote was about the myriad, complex and deeply transformative efforts that millions of Americans made to try to address the harms suffered by slavery and Jim Crow. For you to grandly pronounce a nation still morally guilty based on the tantrums of criminal rioters who were being egged on and supported by paid communist infiltrators is 180 degrees from accurate; moreso because your next sentence seems to acknowlege that the thug behaviors were manipulated by agitators.

If you are going to make a bold assertion claimed by you to be "simple", you must first make up your mind whether non-ownership of slaves is indeed an argument, an explanation or an excuse. I've been pretty clear that it is an argument in refutation of the desire of race baiters to lay guilt on persons who had no involvement and have no control over what other human beings did in a past in which their ancestors did not participate. While a political entity such as a nation may indeed take actions to redress past wrongs done on the national level, the slinging of guilt onto individuals by individuals must stop. From gratuitously rude and uncivil behavior by blacks against whites in daily life to criminal activities such as "polar bear hunting", the "knockout game", assassinations of police officers and criminally destructive rioting, it is revolting to hear that this breakdown of national unity under the rule of law is somehow a legitimate response to events that were inherited by the United States from its British founders and which the United States has poured out enormous efforts and treasure in the search for solutions. See my tagline below. It was written by a pre-eminent economist and social commentator who also happens to be black.

Secondly, under no interpretation whatsoever can you claim evil intentionality that today's whites continue "to benefit from a system that was designed to benefit white people at the expense of non-whites." Given that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail, if racists want to continue to see racial exploitation as the prime operator in the American society and economy, all I can do is extend my pity at such near-sightedness. Statements like this from you are one of the reasons I called your earlier post distorted.

If the only system you are talking about here is slavery, and given that it was practiced by a small percentage of owners in the agricultural trade, and given all the other defenses I have amply provided that the VAST majority of Americans cannot have either benefited financially or through inheritance from slavery, I must assume your statement means you have drunk the Kool-Aid of the "white privilege" theory, which is so marxist, anti-American, communist-inspired and twisted that it blames white people for merely existing, and imagines that they built a nation NOT for the purposes they stated (the pilgrims dedicated a nation to Christ and wished to honor Him in their expectations of law and society; and over a century later, the revolutionary Founders enshrined a nation "under God" with "Nature's God" as its moving force). The "white privilege" theory presumes that the American culture is inherently evil, that all cultures around the world are equally valid and further that the American nation was always intended to be a paradise for people who do not want to work, who want the privileges of a good life without the responsibilities of contributing effort to get it, and who believe the world owes them a living, no matter what they do or do not do to earn it.

Slavery has been abolished for over 150 years, this is true. So now, we should all pretend that things are better, but the facts tell us that something is horribly wrong in this society.

Yes, the facts tell us that the past 60 years of the Democrat, liberal and marxist philosophies that have overtaken our nation are a colossal failure. Our media and the present administration "ask us to believe" flat-out lies on a daily basis, insisting that failed socialist initiatives just need to be redoubled, and all will be well. Oh, and that if there is a failure such as in Baltimore, where the mayor, the chief of police, the majority of the City Council and half the police force is black and Democrat and the city government has been Democrat for the past 45 years, it is the fault of whites, Christians and/or Republicans.

* * *

At this point in your disquisition, you take the completly opposite tack: "Blacks are not in chains and have received generous hand outs (free-stuff) from whites. I mean, that should be enough to pay for the mistakes of the past, right? But the blacks want more, they want to punish whitey for living so well, while they have had to settle for crumbs. /end In the meantime the general public is being played like a cheap fiddle by the media, with the political atmosphere being so racially charged that it won't be long before there is open warfare in our streets."

Perhaps this discussion seems to you to be in opposition to what you are trying to say because you make absolute declarations that are completely opposite within the same post. Which is it? Are whites guilty regardless, or are they not? Are criminally destructive riots always wrong except if they actually accomplish a communist revolution that you would like to see happen, or are they justifiabe iin the long wholesome tradition of American protests because whites should feel guilty, as evidenced by the fact that persons of a marxist-designated victim class are criminally rioting and destroying property paid for by the work of others? Is is because of white people that a black youth is entitled to cut the fire hose as firefighters attempt to quench the arson to a senior center that was under construction at a cost of millions to serve elderly poor blacks in his own community? Was his act of destruction to his own community justifiable because of white privilege?

I really don't see anything in your comments that I would disagree with, which causes me to question from where stems your vehemence towards my comments? My point is quite simple; we cannot have an equitable society without morality, and until we take to heart the moral standards that helped to found this nation, we will continue to suffer.

Then use my comments as a reflection that you need either to improve your thinking about this undeclared civil war that rioters are advancing with the help of white Democrats with an anti-American agenda, or use my comments as a reflection that your writing does not clearly express a consistent point of view.

Please understand as well that there are no simple solutions to the anger of the black underclass and that you have made a number of points, none of which can be logically defined as "simple." The present class war masquerading as a race was is a deeply entrenched problem involving dozens of smokescreens thrown up by the Deceiver to hide his intention to destroy our Bill of Rights. Culture, economics, the off-shoring of jobs coinciding with the intentions of the affirmative action programs, the desires of islamists, communists, financial manipulators and atheists to tear down the Constitution and all evidence of Christian belief and practice all coming together in a perfect storm over the past 30 years. This is a situation that cannot be "simple" in any stretch of the imagination. And yes, quite obviously I have found your attempts to express it simply offensive insofar as they reflect the politically correct postion that whites are entirely to blame, that you are privy to God's intentions, and that criminals have been driven to it by the rest of society having oppressed their ancestors. That is truly a crock. I hope you recover from thinking that way. All Americans are needed on deck at this time because enemies from Russia to the islamist world are online, in our media and attempting in multiple, complex ways to befuddle, blame and accuse Americans at their greatest points of weakness and their greatest points of strength. What side are you on?

As for the nation needing to return to moral governance, I couldn't agree more; but continuing to assume collective white guilt over slavery is among the most utterly self-defeating and ineffectual solutions at this point in time. I believe our society has indeed rendered many constructive remedies unto Caesar, and that the majority of Americans have rendered unto God a renunciation of knee-jerk racial prejudice. As for a cultural preference for the rule of law and the tenets of the Bill of Rights, Americans cannot fairly be blamed for seeing with their own eyes the behaviors of citizens that oppose them, whether the opposition is from rioting mobs, intergenerational welfare cheats or leftist politicians.

I think that there has been a massive turning away from morality on many fronts, most expecially on the issue of the proper role and place of sexuality, that has undertaken the sacrifice of millions of fetuses on the altar of Satan, quite aside from matters of race. I believe we have come to a place where we are hanging by a thread between the ability to recover or the complete destruction of our nation. But for individuals, the challenge is the same challenge since time immemorial: to walk in faith, to conduct oneself as the Holy Spirit would lead us, and to stand firm on the behaviors and ideals expected of us by our Savior, who has already paid for the sins of all who truly believe in Him. By our example, may Christians of every skin color continue to be salt and light in the world. That, and prayer, and such actions to which we are led through faith in the Savior of mankind, are all we can do.

”You say that the CW was fought because of slavery, and believe this is somehow new information? Truly, I'm astonished.”

Your comments are rude and condescending and I think I have been polite in my tone in responding to you. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

”For you to grandly pronounce a nation still morally guilty based on the tantrums of criminal rioters who were being egged on and supported by paid communist infiltrators is 180 degrees from accurate”

Please direct me to where I said such a thing? You are attempting to put words in my mouth. The article in question speaks to Baltimore City enacting legislation that deliberately segregated neighborhoods based on race and the social inequity that follows such policies. To pretend that none of the past is related to the present is hypocritical, and yet you want to believe that after the Civil War all racial hatred was somehow magically swept away? Please, who is being naïve here?

”…you must first make up your mind whether non-ownership of slaves is indeed an argument, an explanation or an excuse.”

It is all three. And I would add that a white person does not need to go there as it is quite a ridiculous statement to make. We all know that no black person is being enslaved by white people today.

”I've been pretty clear that it is an argument in refutation of the desire of race baiters to lay guilt on persons who had no involvement and have no control over what other human beings did in a past in which their ancestors did not participate.”

And I thought I was pretty in my agreement with that statement. Yet you ignore the truth of my statement that whites have indeed benefitted within that system and have continued to do so. There is no reason to refute that or hide from that fact. Why do you fail to address that, does it cause you guilt or embarrassment? It should not as it is simply stated as fact.

” While a political entity such as a nation may indeed take actions to redress past wrongs done on the national level, the slinging of guilt onto individuals by individuals must stop.”

I concur.

”From gratuitously rude and uncivil behavior by blacks against whites in daily life to criminal activities such as "polar bear hunting", the "knockout game", assassinations of police officers and criminally destructive rioting,…”

There is no excuse for rude, violent, and/or criminal behavior and any perpetrator of criminal behavior should face harsh penalties no matter what their color.

”under no interpretation whatsoever can you claim evil intentionality that today's whites continue "to benefit from a system that was designed to benefit white people at the expense of non-whites." Statements like this from you are one of the reasons I called your earlier post distorted.”

Nowhere in my comments did I not make a claim of evil intention by whites to perpetrate racial exploitation against non-whites. I simply stated the fact that whites have benefitted within this political system and continue to do so, through no fault of their own except by virtue of being white. It is what it is, a simple statement of fact that seems to have gotten under your skin for some reason. And please I am not trying to cast aspersions against whites and I am not trying to make anyone feel guilty by stating that, but simply trying to further the dialogue by stating reality.

”If the only system you are talking about here is slavery,...”

No, the slave system is/was one of the most egregious and glaring examples of a political system that has evolved over the last 200 years that is based on complete inequity and falsehood. We are so far from the principles of our founding and wonder why the society is in such a mess?

”I must assume your statement means you have drunk the Kool-Aid of the "white privilege" theory, which is so marxist, anti-American, communist-inspired and twisted that it blames white people for merely existing, “

You assume incorrectly and of course fall back to insults, simply because I have the temerity to speak the truth which you continue to run from.

”…they reflect the politically correct position that whites are entirely to blame, that you are privy to God's intentions, and that criminals have been driven to it by the rest of society having oppressed their ancestors.

I think you are overly sensitive and suffering from white guilt, otherwise you would not become so defensive to the comments that I made which by no means are politically correct. You attempt to place words in my mouth and continue to insult and misrepresent what I stated

The last part of your reply again accuses me of promoting white-guilt, blah, blah, blah… I will close with this;

We will not succeed in winning the culture war, and by that I mean winning people to our Conservative World View, until we are honest with ourselves as well as our adversaries. That entails speaking the truth, not trying to hide from it. It doesn’t mean trying to buy people off with free stuff, welfare, or whatever, but having enough respect to tell people the truth and dealing with them in an honest and civil manner, and holding everyone to account for their own conduct.

If that sounds like I’m trying to guilt trip white people or excuse black criminality, I apologize.

Please direct me to where I said such a thing?

In post 10, and I quote,

What we see before us in places like Baltimore and Ferguson, etc... are the consequences of a history of people doing the wrong thing, such as:
• Stealing men
• Failing to properly redress the previous wrong
• Allowing immoral men to govern the rest of us
• Making excuses to justify our failure to do what is right...

You began by labeling the rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore "the consequences of a history of people doing the wrong thing", that "history" and "people" being the actions of the European majority, and go on to cite the slave system, the "failure to redress" the slave system, and so forth. These words imply that the rioting and killing of policemen in 2015 are in your opinion the justifiable results of a long-dead institution of legal labor slavery; and you go on to label and dismiss all the efforts I have previously discussed that were made in the ensuing 150 years as a "failure to redress" that long-dead system. One must logically infer from your words that you cling to the long-dead past as a live weapon of power to cast irreconcilable blame and guilt.

The words "Stealing men" is shorthand I will grant you, but it is inflammatory, blame-casting language meant to bolster your previous implication that race-based rioting is justified because of slavery; and your claim of "stealing" , while morally figurative, is factually revisionist at best. Mediterranean and Atlantic chattel slavery was promulgated centuries before the passage of the U.S. Constitution by Arab muslims and indigenous Africans making a business of selling captives, which were purchased by shipmasters; and as earlier discussed, only a small percentage of that trade was sent to the Colonies or the later United States. This practice was brought to these shores under British rule, BEFORE the formation of the United States. I completely agree that the practice was morally reprehensible; yet the charge of stealing cannot be justified if one views the business as it was conducted then, in which payments were asked and paid.

The practice was a source of great contention among Americans from the earliest colonial days and was argued against in pulpits, newspapers and the Constitutional Convention, and was only allowed to remain in law by the same sort of chicanery you see in Washington DC today where the Democrat majority forced an indenture on all Americans in the form of a government-run, socialist healthcare program against vigorous opposition, and now it will take many succeeding generations decades to undo its inevitably anti-Constitutional effects.

The article in question speaks to Baltimore City enacting legislation that deliberately segregated neighborhoods based on race and the social inequity that follows such policies.

I live outside Baltimore. You may or may not know that millions upon millions of dollars have been poured into the West Baltimore area (that was the locus of the rioting) over the past 25 years to address socioeconomic inequality. Nor do I believe the article's account that the area was deliberately segregated at any time since the mid- to late 1950s, when race-based real estate "redlining" was made illegal across the country specifically to fight residential segregation.

To pretend that none of the past is related to the present is hypocritical, and yet you want to believe that after the Civil War all racial hatred was somehow magically swept away? Please, who is being naïve here?

This sentence is an example of the sort of sweeping generalization your posts have made that, in your attempts to find a "simple" answer to a very complex situation, is just overblown rhetoric. First, it assumes that the buying and selling of slaves and the ensuing segregation of races was entirely based on "hatred" of persons rather than first, a cold economic motivation and second, a deep clash of cultures and a need for two groups to work out a mutual adjustment. And it is my lack of pretending that seems to be bothering you. I am taking a realistic view, not romanticizing either the antebellum South, the colonial era in general, or the noble oppressed persons of whatever color. I believe that rain falls on the just and the unjust, and that people have free will and an inborn conscience, and that all fall short of the glory of God. All are sinners in need of a Savior. And all must work by the sweat of their brow to earn a living. Yet Jesus taught that it is the prerogative of the owner of the vineyard to pay the same wage to the workers who were hired late in the day as to those who worked all day, because He owns the vineyard and it is His money. In short, life isn't fair. The Bible teaches us that we are all unique, all beloved by God, that He wants all of us to become saved by repenting and following His teachings, and that we should make the most of our talents and circumstances in which we find ourselves, forgiving others and not trespassing against them. He taught that it is as difficult for the rich to find the Kingdom of heaven as it is for the poor, and perhaps more so because their eathly wealth blinds them. This is why covetousness and working for standing among other humans rather than in His eyes is so corrupting. There is no "race" in His principles for living. There are no races or sexes in heaven, either. We must strive for civil justice and peace, but we cannot look to political solutions for our ultimate happiness and salvation, but only to the grace and mercy of the eternal Mind, Christ Jesus.

Yet you ignore the truth of my statement that whites have indeed benefitted within that system and have continued to do so. There is no reason to refute that or hide from that fact. Why do you fail to address that, does it cause you guilt or embarrassment?

I'm "ignoring", "hiding" or "running from" nothing—I have been nakedly confrontational on all your points, word for word. You label your undocumented opinion as "the truth"—that whites did and do benefit more from the labors of chattel slavery than they did and do from their own monumental efforts to tame the wilderness and develop an uniquely innovative civilization. You give no economic analysis or citation for why this may be true, when common sense and simple arithmetic indicate that it is not "the" truth but only possible in part. Nor have the succeeding generations of descendents of slaves been excluded from the benefits of a powerful economy that has "lifted all boats" to the degree that the poorest welfare recipients in this country enjoy a higher standard of living than the everday person in hundreds of other nations in the world, most certainly including many African nations. Once again you trotted out the white guilt without knowing if I am white, black, Asian, brown, male or female.

Let us not forget the motivated persons of color in this country who have demonstrated that the American Dream has been made available to persons of color for so long now that we have outstanding persons of color in every walk of life — from millionaires and billionaires in business, government, sports, media and entertainment to solid citizens in middle-class homes and jobs, the military, police, firefighting, all civic organizations. American's first female self-made millionaire, over 100 years ago, was an African-American.

In view that those whom you call "whites"... (your choice to use race as an identifier instead of the culture and legal system of northwestern Europe, which was based not on skin color, but on Christianity and the Western canon of intellectual development) ...were the overwhelming majority of the population for the first approximately 350 years of colonization and nationalization of this territory, how can anyone possibly fault "white" people for benefiting from the system? The idea that this is an inherent evil is lodged in the scripturally forbidden sin of covetousness, or on your own guilt or desire to inflict guilt, in that I also do not know your background, gender, etc. Not buying what you are selling there.

If I as an American were to move to a nation in Africa, for instance, whether voluntarily or by some quirk of fate, I would be the one who has to learn the language, learn the customs and accept the fact that I and my descendents would likely always be in a small minority. That being the case, my family would have to adjust themselves to the reality of mathematics and not blame my African neighbors nor teach smoldering resentment to my children for the primacy of the mainstream culture, assuming a reasonable legal standard for minority persons. If the culture were to prove utterly intolerable, we would do what we could to effect reasonable change, and have to make a plan to migrate elsewhere. Under no circumstances would I encourage my children to incite riots or excuse them for throwing rocks at policemen and burning down buildings because they have been oppressed by minority status. Christ expects us to persevere to the end and by our actions be a witness and testament to His transcendent peace.

I appreciate your attempts to conciliate. If I sound short-tempered with your having implied above a justification of indefensible criminal behavior, I hope my having explained where and why your words raised the alarm will provide some insight. I hope this is more a matter of how you express yourself than how you think.

Blessings.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.