Buy or Sell: Drawing the Color Line

[Willie Pep 229]

You should look up "redlining" and then it will all make sense. In particular, note its link to education.

I understand red lining. It has been taught in every basic government textbook since the 1970s up north and the 1980s in the south.

He doesn't want to address deliberate segregation whether de jure - or de facto, with red lining being a product of the latter.

(And yes I am aware of the paradox of calling 'de facto' --> deliberate, but red lining was deliberate, designed to create a de facto segregation.)

Red lining has been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ended in practice by the 1980s.

Your guy doesn't say red line - he says arbitrary

He wants to address the new buzz word of the day --> systemic/institutionalized racism in education and I didn't see it happening over the past 37 years.

I saw several brands of ' white flight' - white Americans moving upstate, white skinned Cubans moving out of Dade County to Broward County leaving the darker skinned latinos in Dade County, and an increase of the number of non-religious private schools. Non of which has been government mandated, influenced, or assisted.

But again I can't speak for the distribution of monies, only the students.

Red lining: You pulled a 50 year now dead racist tactic out your ass and suggested I didn't know or understand its implications.

'Arbitrary' ?

[Willie Pep 229]

Exactly. He was just being made to jump thru another hoop.

I don't believe it was that simple - IMO he beats Tunney I think ge gets the 1926 shot at Dempsey.

If you look back at 1922 (when the fight really should have happened) Wills doesn't have a list of white fighters on his resume. (Of course we both know why that is.) His claim to a rightful shot at Dempsey came via being recognized as the best 'Negro' around, e.g. Colored HW Champion.

This meant the fight was likely to be marketed as a race fight, i.e. the fight had too much race attached to it and activists were using it as early as 1920 to promote their agenda.

In 1922 there was quite a bit of back lash against this fight.

By 1926 things had changed a bit (in the boxing world, not America. America was still as racist as hell), Wills' right to a title shot was now viewed more for his own prowess than his skin color.

A week after Dempsey lost to Tunney, Rickard announced a Dempsey-Wills fight at Yankee Stadium the next summer. It would certainly be an easier fight to make now that the title wasn't on the line. But in the end Sharkey got that fight instead.

Just my opinion. Who's knows.

[QueensburyRules]

That doesn't answer the question, as he had gone through more than one boxer with a "clear path to Dempsey" and still didn't get the shot.

So when did he walk away from this fight?

- - When it was proposed by Rickard.

It's like U was born yesterday for the umpteenth time today.

[travestyny]

[QUOTE=Dr. Z;n31561369]

Now you are trying to attack a band? :lol

Sorry, but I'm not a huge fan of theirs. I just like their album cover and that particular album is also very good.



I'll ask you the question again for you to duck it.


Are schools in the average Black neighborhood the same quality as schools in the average White neighborhood? The quality of the schools.

And I'll give you your study material yet again.





Let's see if you flunk out again. Judging by your spelling and grammatical skills, you don't stand a chance.



By the way, don't duck my other more relevant question. What do you have of Wills besides what we know is already out there? Gone silent on that, huh? You'd rather talk about CRT now [/QUOTE

No, I view the band as questionable. The photo seems sick, and is within your political activity.

To answer your question, THE CRT race theory is flawed. Too many black student underachieve due to their culture. Kids grew up without fathers, and skip or drop out of school in the average back neighborhood, far more often the average white neither hood. This is fact and has nothing to so with the quality of the school. Therefore the schools testing scores, which is a way of measuring school success, as is graduation rate, the amount who attend college, and other ways to measure which students are doing well, are poor in Black neighborhoods.

CRT is nothing but noise designed to funnel money for a cause. Public money, state money, and federal money. Got it now? I'll act like you for a moment, Prove what I said is wrong or shut up. Your a joke

And you ducked it again


Should I ask you an 80th time?


duck duck duck


That's how I know you have nothing. You can't even answer a question. And you STILL haven't said anything about the merits of CRT because you probably can't even tell me what it is.


But hey, I'm willing to make you duck it yet again. Are schools in the average Black neighborhood the same quality as schools in the average White neighborhood? Why can't you answer, hmmm? Let's talk elementary schools. Same quality or not.


Duck it again

[travestyny]

- - When it was proposed by Rickard.

It's like U was born yesterday for the umpteenth time today.

When did that happen? Show the proof.


Wills never walked away from the Dempsey fight. Never. You are a liar.

[travestyny]

I don't believe it was that simple - IMO he beats Tunney I think ge gets the 1926 shot at Dempsey.

If you look back at 1922 (when the fight really should have happened) Wills doesn't have a list of white fighters on his resume. (Of course we both know why that is.) His claim to a rightful shot at Dempsey came via being recognized as the best 'Negro' around, e.g. Colored HW Champion.

This meant the fight was likely to be marketed as a race fight, i.e. the fight had too much race attached to it and activists were using it as early as 1920 to promote their agenda.

In 1922 there was quite a bit of back lash against this fight.

By 1926 things had changed a bit (in the boxing world, not America. America was still as racist as hell), Wills' right to a title shot was now viewed more for his own prowess than his skin color.

A week after Dempsey lost to Tunney, Rickard announced a Dempsey-Wills fight at Yankee Stadium the next summer. It would certainly be an easier fight to make now that the title wasn't on the line. But in the end Sharkey got that fight instead.

Just my opinion. Who's knows.

The public was calling for the fight at least by 1923 if not earlier. We've been though this a billion times.

[travestyny]

I understand red lining. It has been taught in every basic government textbook since the 1970s up north and the 1980s in the south.

He doesn't want to address deliberate segregation whether de jure - or de facto, with red lining being a product of the latter.

(And yes I am aware of the paradox of calling 'de facto' --> deliberate, but red lining was deliberate, designed to create a de facto segregation.)

Red lining has been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ended in practice by the 1980s.

Your guy doesn't say red line - he says arbitrary

He wants to address the new buzz word of the day --> systemic/institutionalized racism in education and I didn't see it happening over the past 37 years.

I saw several brands of ' white flight' - white Americans moving upstate, white skinned Cubans moving out of Dade County to Broward County leaving the darker skinned latinos in Dade County, and an increase of the number of non-religious private schools. Non of which has been government mandated, influenced, or assisted.

But again I can't speak for the distribution of monies, only the students.

Red lining: You pulled a 50 year now dead racist tactic out your ass and suggested I didn't know or understand its implications.

'Arbitrary' ?

If you understood redlining, then you wouldn't be talking the way you do.

Why racial inequities in America's schools are rooted in housing policies of the past

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/6083342002/

That's proof I didn't pull anything out of my ass. Be careful, because if you want to start getting snarky, you know I'll take it there. So don't start crying when you bring it on yourself.

[travestyny]

I understand red lining. It has been taught in every basic government textbook since the 1970s up north and the 1980s in the south.

He doesn't want to address deliberate segregation whether de jure - or de facto, with red lining being a product of the latter.

(And yes I am aware of the paradox of calling 'de facto' --> deliberate, but red lining was deliberate, designed to create a de facto segregation.)

Red lining has been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ended in practice by the 1980s.

Your guy doesn't say red line - he says arbitrary

He wants to address the new buzz word of the day --> systemic/institutionalized racism in education and I didn't see it happening over the past 37 years.

I saw several brands of ' white flight' - white Americans moving upstate, white skinned Cubans moving out of Dade County to Broward County leaving the darker skinned latinos in Dade County, and an increase of the number of non-religious private schools. Non of which has been government mandated, influenced, or assisted.

But again I can't speak for the distribution of monies, only the students.

Red lining: You pulled a 50 year now dead racist tactic out your ass and suggested I didn't know or understand its implications.

'Arbitrary' ?

Your focus on the word arbitrary seems odd to me. But since you keep harping on it.


Clearly what the author is talking about is gerrymandering.

And yes, gerrymandering is pretty arbitrary.... or not...depending on how you look at it.


Arbitrary lines....used to gain some benefit for political parties or a certain group of people.


This should help you to understand why he used that word.

Is your district drawing borders to reduce or perpetuate racial segregation?\

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/8/1682237...errymander-map

Gerrymandered school districts perpetuate segregation by keeping low-income students out, which is bad for economic growth

https://equitablegrowth.org/gerryman...onomic-growth/

The gerrymandering of educational boundaries and the segregation of American schools : a geospatial analysis

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/46215

Redistricting Watch: How Gerrymandering Upholds Segregation in Schools

https://www.lwv.org/blog/redistricti...gation-schools

Now you can stop bothering me about the one little word you picked out that had nothing to do with the main point I was making.

[travestyny]

I don't believe it was that simple - IMO he beats Tunney I think ge gets the 1926 shot at Dempsey.

I'm shocked that you would try to make this argument. Or maybe not so shocked actually now that I think about it.


Every time we talk about this fight, you claim that everyone and their momma was responsible for it not coming off except Dempsey, especially Rickard.

And here you are actually arguing that if Wills beats Tunney, Rickard, whom again, you claim played a major part in the fight not happening, would suddenly come around and give Wills the shot???????

Really??????


You blow up your own arguments and prove that you would say just about anything to fit your own agenda. So is your argument now that Rickard was only against this fight because he needed to see Wills against Tunney first? Though the fight was wanted by the public and more lucrative than Dempsey vs. Tunney???


I'd love to hear you reconcile your arguments now.

[Willie Pep 229]

I'm shocked that you would try to make this argument. Or maybe not so shocked actually now that I think about it.


Every time we talk about this fight, you claim that everyone and their momma was responsible for it not coming off except Dempsey, especially Rickard.

And here you are actually arguing that if Wills beats Tunney, Rickard, whom again, you claim played a major part in the fight not happening, would suddenly come around and give Wills the shot???????

Really??????


You blow up your own arguments and prove that you would say just about anything to fit your own agenda. So is your argument now that Rickard was only against this fight because he needed to see Wills against Tunney first? Though the fight was wanted by the public and more lucrative than Dempsey vs. Tunney???


I'd love to hear you reconcile your arguments now.

No I didn't say suddenly - I said four years later in 1926.

No I am not saying Rickard was the only one against the fight in 1922 - I always said Kearns was as well because it would involve Rickard. I always felt Rickard was the only one who could make the fight.

That line in bold is clueless - how in God's good nane did you decipher that from my post?

I'll try once again but you really didn't try to understand the above post you probably won't try to understand this one.

In short: The fight back in '20 - '22 would have been pure racial - in 192o Wills' claim to fame was he was a great Negro boxer.

By 1926 Farley, New York, and the NYSAC had developed Wills into more than just a Negro fighter.

He had become the uncrowded champion in New York's eyes, he was a celebrity referee, he helped promote charity (milk fund) fights. He was his own man, he was a personality.

Back in '20-'22 when Wills was chasing Dempsey it was all about white vs colored. By 1926 Wills has become more than that.

In regards to the bold for Rickard it was 'no' in 1922 and 'yes' for summer 1927. And no I am not saying Rickard said that Wills had to beat Tunney first. I have never read that, I have never said that!

Now let me address your inability to parse the politics of the day. The idea that you think 'Wills had jumped through enough hoops already' is utterly absurd!

He was a negro in the 1920s trying to get a shot at the HW title. If he needed to beat Tunney to get that shot (which obviously he did) then he needed to go after Tunney and clear the field. He really had no choice.

To think that you believe a Negro fighter back then could 'stand on principle' is comical.

You know who would roll his eyes and laugh if he heard you say that ridiculous statement, Jack Johnson!