How the South Skews America

[autigeremt 6,599]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-the-south-skews-america-119725.html?ml=m_a3_1#.VZ5yuvlVikq

[autigeremt 6,599]

Of course from the SAME publication....

Want to Meet America’s Worst Racists? Come to the Northwest

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/northwest-front-americas-worst-racists-119803.html#ixzz3fOq7ZBME

[aujeff11 6,243]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

[homersapien 11,366]

I think he makes some good points with supporting evidence.

[homersapien 11,366]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

[aujeff11 6,243]

I think he makes some good points with supporting evidence.

There was literally no evidence.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

[cole256 17,043]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

Well I've had people tell me of their experience with that

[aujeff11 6,243]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

Well I've had people tell me of their experience with that

With what? Domestic and farm workers were exempt from social security because the treasury didn't know how to tax them and what not since they worked in the fields and not in the public sector. There were white people that were exempt from the benefits as well. Tons of empirical evidence state that the southern democrats had nothing to do with that bill.

[cole256 17,043]

With being able to vote

[aujeff11 6,243]

With being able to vote

Oh. Well that is correct. I was talking about welfare. My point is there was de facto segregation all over the country. Singling out the south is silly. The south was where the segregation battles were fought but the black Americans all over the nation benefited from them. Segregation was just as much American as it was southern.

[homersapien 11,366]

I think he makes some good points with supporting evidence.

There was literally no evidence.

Uh, he quoted statistics.

[homersapien 11,366]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

[homersapien 11,366]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

Does living 63 years in the South and growing up in the Birmingham area during the 50's and 60's count for "research"? :-\

[aujeff11 6,243]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

Does growing up in the Birmingham area and living 63 years in the South count for "research"? :-\/>

Nope. Unless you think all 63 year old men from the Birmingham area is all knowing about a legislation that occurred before they were born.

[homersapien 11,366]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

Does growing up in the Birmingham area and living 63 years in the South count for "research"? :-\/>

Nope. Unless you think all 63 year old men from the Birmingham area is all knowing about a legislation that occurred before they were born.

Don't forget, 63 years makes for a lot of reading time. Especially if you start early.

But the original point is that you miss characterized what the article said. It's not about the legislation itself.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

Does growing up in the Birmingham area and living 63 years in the South count for "research"? :-\/>

Nope. Unless you think all 63 year old men from the Birmingham area is all knowing about a legislation that occurred before they were born.

Don't forget, 63 years makes for a lot of reading time. Especially if you start early.

But the original point is that you miss characterized what the article said. It's not about the legislation itself.

My point was the article was full of inaccurate information, the legislation being one of them.

[homersapien 11,366]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

Does growing up in the Birmingham area and living 63 years in the South count for "research"? :-\/>

Nope. Unless you think all 63 year old men from the Birmingham area is all knowing about a legislation that occurred before they were born.

Don't forget, 63 years makes for a lot of reading time. Especially if you start early.

But the original point is that you miss characterized what the article said. It's not about the legislation itself.

My point was the article was full of inaccurate information, the legislation being one of them.

Then the burden is on you to explain how or why it's inaccurate.

But that doesn't change the fact you miss characterized the article. There was nothing in the article about the South supporting or opposing Roosevelt's programs in general. The article stated that the South shaped it's state laws around Jim Crow, which is certainly true.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

Does growing up in the Birmingham area and living 63 years in the South count for "research"? :-\/>

Nope. Unless you think all 63 year old men from the Birmingham area is all knowing about a legislation that occurred before they were born.

Don't forget, 63 years makes for a lot of reading time. Especially if you start early.

But the original point is that you miss characterized what the article said. It's not about the legislation itself.

My point was the article was full of inaccurate information, the legislation being one of them.

Then the burden is on you to explain how or why it's inaccurate.

But that doesn't change the fact you miss characterized the article. There was nothing in the article about the South supporting or opposing Roosevelt's programs in general. The article stated that the South shaped it's state laws around Jim Crow, which is certainly true.

My God where do you think SSA came from?

Jim Crow laws weren't even mentioned...

[homersapien 11,366]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

Does growing up in the Birmingham area and living 63 years in the South count for "research"? :-\/>

Nope. Unless you think all 63 year old men from the Birmingham area is all knowing about a legislation that occurred before they were born.

Don't forget, 63 years makes for a lot of reading time. Especially if you start early.

But the original point is that you miss characterized what the article said. It's not about the legislation itself.

My point was the article was full of inaccurate information, the legislation being one of them.

Then the burden is on you to explain how or why it's inaccurate.

But that doesn't change the fact you miss characterized the article. There was nothing in the article about the South supporting or opposing Roosevelt's programs in general. The article stated that the South shaped it's state laws around Jim Crow, which is certainly true.

My God where do you think SSA came from?

Jim Crow laws weren't even mentioned...

Sorry, you'll have to expand a little more. That was cryptic.

How about starting by stating your premise? (What you think the paragraph at issue said.)

[aujeff11 6,243]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

Does growing up in the Birmingham area and living 63 years in the South count for "research"? :-\/>

Nope. Unless you think all 63 year old men from the Birmingham area is all knowing about a legislation that occurred before they were born.

Don't forget, 63 years makes for a lot of reading time. Especially if you start early.

But the original point is that you miss characterized what the article said. It's not about the legislation itself.

My point was the article was full of inaccurate information, the legislation being one of them.

Then the burden is on you to explain how or why it's inaccurate.

But that doesn't change the fact you miss characterized the article. There was nothing in the article about the South supporting or opposing Roosevelt's programs in general. The article stated that the South shaped it's state laws around Jim Crow, which is certainly true.

My God where do you think SSA came from?

Jim Crow laws weren't even mentioned...

Sorry, you'll have to expand a little more. That was cryptic.

How about starting by stating your premise? (What you think the paragraph at issue said.)

The article said,

And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor

It's not that hard to scroll up and see where I said that this is article is inaccurate, the above quoted sentence is inaccurate, and overall, this article is a pathetic attempt of journalism. Blaming the grievances of one country on one region is pathetic. If the author wants to live in New Zealand, leave! Do you need more direction or do you just want me to write out your rebuttal for you?

As far as the SSA, here are some hard facts and plenty of empirical evidence from the organization that collectively comes together to dispel the myth that the SSA was guided by Southern Democrat bigots who wanted to reinforce segregation. Now, if you still think the legislation is irrelevant to the article, blame that on Michael Lind for including SSA in the article.

"The article stated that the South shaped it's state laws around Jim Crow, which is certainly true."

The article never said such a thing.

[homersapien 11,366]

I don't know about skewed. Maybe to him, homogeneity is to be desired but I don't care to be just like Canada or New Zealand. Also, the south did not help FDR pass welfare state policies. That is a myth. Even if the south did, it's not like the legislation passed on a handful of votes, so you can't blame the south for it when every other region voted on it as well.

That's not what the article said:

"And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor. Not until the 1960s, with the help of federal military intervention in Southern states, was the right of African-Americans to vote secured."

Do you believe everything you read?

No. But I pretty much understand everything I read if it's plainly stated.

plainly stated information is just as likely to be false. Do some independent research, huh?

Does growing up in the Birmingham area and living 63 years in the South count for "research"? :-\/>

Nope. Unless you think all 63 year old men from the Birmingham area is all knowing about a legislation that occurred before they were born.

Don't forget, 63 years makes for a lot of reading time. Especially if you start early.

But the original point is that you miss characterized what the article said. It's not about the legislation itself.

My point was the article was full of inaccurate information, the legislation being one of them.

Then the burden is on you to explain how or why it's inaccurate.

But that doesn't change the fact you miss characterized the article. There was nothing in the article about the South supporting or opposing Roosevelt's programs in general. The article stated that the South shaped it's state laws around Jim Crow, which is certainly true.

My God where do you think SSA came from?

Jim Crow laws weren't even mentioned...

Sorry, you'll have to expand a little more. That was cryptic.

How about starting by stating your premise? (What you think the paragraph at issue said.)

The article said,

And thanks to mid-century Southern members of Congress, welfare-state policies from home ownership to Social Security were designed to reinforce segregation or exclude the disproportionately-Southern black and white poor

It's not that hard to scroll up and see where I said that this is article is inaccurate, the above quoted sentence is inaccurate, and overall, this article is a pathetic attempt of journalism. Blaming the grievances of one country on one region is pathetic. If the author wants to live in New Zealand, leave! Do you need more direction or do you just want me to write out your rebuttal for you?

As far as the SSA, here are some hard facts and plenty of empirical evidence from the organization that collectively comes together to dispel the myth that the SSA was guided by Southern Democrat bigots who wanted to reinforce segregation. Now, if you still think the legislation is irrelevant to the article, blame that on Michael Lind for including SSA in the article.

"The article stated that the South shaped it's state laws around Jim Crow, which is certainly true."

The article never said such a thing.

Well I didn't interpret that passage in the article in that way but going back and studying it a little more you may be right. If so, I agree it was a poor point for the author to have been making in a piece that was otherwise accurate.

Frankly, I was never aware of the controversy of alleged southern-interjected of racism in the SSA. Perhaps that's why I may have misinterpreted that part. However, it is obviously true that any laws affecting black people, federal or state, were translated through the lens of Jim Crow.

[Mims44 1,867]

This entire bit he wrote is horse s*** lmao. Even the parts he is somewhat right about are so over simplified it's stupid.

There are tons of scholarly works that dispute most of his points that even I am aware of... Inter-generational social mobility: The United States in comparative perspective. Is a decent one, but no one will read it.

Inter-generational mobility by Beller is also decent, but again... no one will read it.

So just read stupid made up facts by a non educated journalist and then repeat them as if they are common sense.