Posted on 06/19/2017 3:59:38 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
Since the 1960s, black leaders have placed a heavy emphasis on gaining political power, and Barack Obama’s presidency represented the apex of those efforts. The assumption — rarely challenged — is that black political clout must come before black social and economic advancement. But as Jason L. Riley argues in this excerpt from his new book, “False Black Power” (Templeton Press), political success has not been a major factor in the rise of racial and ethnic groups from poverty to prosperity.
..... Yet the socioeconomic progress that was supposed to follow in the wake of these political gains never materialized. During an era of growing black political influence, blacks as a group progressed at a slower rate than whites, and the black poor actually lost ground.
In a 1991 book, social scientist Gary Orfield and his co-author, journalist Carole Ashkinaze, assessed the progress of blacks in the 1970s and ’80s following the sharp increase in black officeholders. The thinking, then and now, was that the problems of the cities “were basically the result of the racism of white officials and that many could be solved by black mayors, school superintendents, policemen and teachers who were displacing white ones.” The expectation, they added, “was that black political and education leaders would be able to make large moves toward racial equity simply by devising policies and practices reflecting their understanding of the background and needs of black people.”
But the integration of these institutions proved to be insufficient. “Many blacks have reached positions of local power, such as mayor, county commission chairman or superintendent of schools, positions undreamed of 30 years ago,” they wrote. Their findings, however, showed that “these achievements do not necessarily produce success for blacks as a whole.”.......
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Frederick Douglass: “Without a struggle, there can be no progress.”
Obama’s policies did not lead to any kind of progress for anyone, except ISIS, etc.
Blacks will never achieve success while on the welfare roles. Welfare destroys people spiritually. Skin color doesn’t matter in this regard. The politicians who promote welfare schemes know exactly what they are doing. They want the captive voters.
“The expectation, they added, “was that black political and education leaders would be able to make large moves toward racial equity simply by devising policies and practices reflecting their understanding of the background and needs of black people.” “
These genuises apparently forgot to look at the example of Sub-Saharan Africa, where there have been blacks in power for quite some time, yet the black population as a whole is no better off, and likely worse off, than when there was colonial white rule.
With a bit of critical sifting of the evidence, I think a lot of blacks could conclude that the likes of Barry Obummer, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, et al. are unlikely to lead them into prosperity.
We dodged the bullet with Nixon and Ford, believe it or not. They broke the momentum between Johnson and his disastrous "War on Poverty" ("we'll have those ******* voting democrat for the next 200 years!") and the of Nixon and Ford before the next "progressive incompetent disaster" of Jimmy Cohrrer...
That minimizes the achievement of Reagan setting a standard of quiet modest real achievement before the criminal shitstorm in the distance, now known as the Clinton Criminal Enterprises... and the Great Kenyan Fraud.
God bless the Tea Party for making it, and Trump, eventually possible!
Black political clout would only set blacks and the whole country back, not time-wise but in economic terms and overall well being.
Zimbabwe, South Africa, Haiti are all real life poster children of black political clout.
The great conservative Thomas Sowell uses the term “mascot group” in speaking of how leftists treat minority groups such as US blacks. They aren’t really part of the team, they are just along as mascots — that would be the corollary.
First of all, Obama was not really concerned about US blacks, as he was not one himself. He made a big thing about taking his Obama’s name and going to Chicago to lay claim to a constituency that he was not really part of prior to that change.
His interests were the communist/progressive agenda interests. Muslims, Gays and hispanics were newer and more likely useful mascot groups than blacks — in fact all the black firms were destroyed by immigration and the fake depression created to the show to begin.
How plain did it have to be? The only thing I could do to make it more obvious is to issue a coloring book story for anyone to follow like the classic comics retelling a story from literature when we were kids.
Zero didn’t give two sh&&ts about “black” people or anyone else for that matter ... all he cared about was Zero
Because he’s not black?
Democrats “jobs programs” are all about getting more people on the public payroll so that their government employee pals can give them back lots of money into their campaign funds. It’s called patronage. And black poverty keeps blacks voting 90% democrat. Huge national welfare programs begun under democrat Lyndon Johnson destroy the family and the work ethic and also create more government jobs for the poverty pimps.
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.