Buy or Sell: Drawing the Color Line

[Dr. Z]

Reply to what exactly. You keep ducking the question. Why won't you answer.


I'll try for an 81st time. Are the schools in average Black neighborhoods the same quality as schools in average White neighborhoods.

You are talking about the students. That's not what I'm asking and you know it.


You going to keep ducking? Try being a man for once in your life.



And again, you've said nothing about the merits of CRT. You obviously don't even know what it is. You can't prove something is flawed without even addressing the merits, dumbo. What you would have to prove is that there is no systemic racism. And you know I already have tons of proof that there is, including by the United States Sentencing Commission itself. You're going to lose this argument as soon as you grow a pair and try to answer questions. Stop ducking.

I asserted your question, you avoid my answer!. It's the culture, numbskull. Your pathetic. Sad.

[travestyny]

Rickard was scared to make the fight in 1922 - Kearns didn't Rickard's fingers in anymore Dempsry fights, and the best way to that end was to keep the fight out of NY (the northeast,) thus the Shelby disaster.

Farley's involvment was trying to bar Dempsey from fighting anyone in the New York area that wasn't Wills. As you know at one point in 1922 they tried to strip Dempsey's title from him but ended up with egg on their face when they realized the public wasn't buying into their claimed authority.

My personal conjecture regarging Farley is that Wills was more valuable to him as the 'wronged' challenger (wronged because of the color line) which he played well politically, as he consolidated the Uptown Black vote (Harlem) moving them away from the Party of Lincoln over to supporting the ********s (in NY that was Tammanny).

I suspect if Farley could have gotten a Dempsey-Wills fight in the Polo Grounds he would have supported it, but Wills fighting outside of NY (e.g. Montreal) was not on his agenda.

In short Wills was more politically valuable as a wronged Negro then he was as a defeated challenger. I question Farley's motives, not 100% sure he was really acting on Wills behave, but instead his own.

But still, being that he wanted the fight clearly and wasn't an obstruction to it, why is that an issue?

Unless you are arguing that he tried to stop the fight from happening while he pretended to be for it. Which makes no sense to me and I don't think there is any proof of that at all.

[travestyny]

I asserted your question, you avoid my answer!. It's the culture, numbskull. Your pathetic. Sad.

You asserted my question...?

What the hell are you talking about?

Culture can't explain why one school is better than another, you fool.


You are ducking the question hard.



It's very simple. Are the schools themselves...you know...the ones that got much less funding in Black neighborhoods, the same quality as the schools that got much more funding in White neighborhoods.


Why won't you answer? Why do you keep deflecting to talking about students? 5 year olds going to school doesn't make one school better or worse than the other. The teachers, the staff, their support, and the resources available to them is what makes one school better than another. So still awaiting your reply.


If you keep insisting you have answered, I say we should bring in a 3rd unbiased party to confirm if you've answered the question satisfactorily. You down for that? Because your ducking is obvious and you will be exposed. So what do you say?

[Willie Pep 229]

But still, being that he wanted the fight clearly and wasn't an obstruction to it, why is that an issue?

Unless you are arguing that he tried to stop the fight from happening while he pretended to be for it. Which makes no sense to me and I don't think there is any proof of that at all.

I didn't say that. When Muldoon controlled the NYSAC he didn't want the fight. He tried to close out the Polo Grounds.

When Farley lost his seat in the Bronx in the 1922 election Tammany protected him by appointment to the Commission.

Farley was better connected than Muldoon and he slowly took over control of the NYSAC.

At that point Farley began to champion Wills' cause.

How sincere he was about it is pure conjecture on my part.

One should never take Farley at face value. A history of cut throat politics.

The man's name belongs on a list with James Carvel, Howard Baker, Lee Atwater, Karl Rowe. He was that kind of human being.

But besides your distaste for my disrespect for James Farely I am really not sure what we are disagreeing on.

I guess it is this phrase that offends you: "I am not100 percent in that Farley really gave a damn about Harry Wiils except how he was of value politically."

[travestyny]

I didn't say that. When Muldoon controlled the NYSAC he didn't want the fight. He tried to close out the Polo Grounds.

When Farley lost his seat in the Bronx in the 1922 election Tammany protected him by appointment to the Commission.

Farley was better connected than Muldoon and he slowly took over control of the NYSAC.

At that point Farley began to champion Wills' cause.

How sincere he was about it is pure conjecture on my part.

One should never take Farley at face value. A history of cut throat politics.

The man's name belongs on a list with James Carvel, Howard Baker, Lee Atwater, Karl Rowe. He was that kind of human being.

But besides your distaste for my disrespect for James Farely I am really not sure what we are disagreeing on.

I guess it is this phrase that offends you: "I am not100 percent in that Farley really gave a damn about Harry Wiils except how he was of value politically."

No no. I don't have an opinion on him one way or another. I'm just not understanding your beef with him with regards to the Wills/Dempsey fight.


He clearly wanted it to happen, as any boxing commissioner should have at that time. If anyone could ensure that it was possible, he, as a commissioner, would have been a big part of that.

I think you took offense to his statement that there were no powers barring the fight from happening. As a commissioner, he said Dempsey was welcome to fight Wills there. To me that means the fight could have been made. It was up to Dempsey's side to agree, and we know they refused. So I never knew why you chose to go into his politics as if it meant anything in this discussion. All of it just means that there was another entlty that wasn't in the way of this fight. The ONLY parties that were not on board were Dempsey himself (Montreal and Chicago), Rickard, and Kearns.

[travestyny]

I asserted your question, you avoid my answer!. It's the culture, numbskull. Your pathetic. Sad.

Here is a study that addresses my question. Let's see if you deny this

Inequality in Teaching and Schooling: How Opportunity Is Rationed to Students of Color in America

Despite the rhetoric of American equality, the school experiences of African-American and other “minority” students in the United States continue to be substantially separate and unequal. Few Americans realize that the U.S. educational system is one of the most unequal in the industrialized world, and that students routinely receive dramatically different learning opportunities based on their social status.

Poor and minority students are concentrated in the least well-funded schools, most of which are located in central cities or rural areas and funded at levels substantially below those of neighboring suburban districts. Recent analyses of data prepared for school finance cases in Alabama, New Jersey, New York, Louisiana, and Texas have found that on every tangible measure—from qualified teachers to curriculum offerings—schools serving greater numbers of students of color had significantly fewer resources than schools serving mostly white students.

Not only do funding systems allocate fewer resources to poor urban districts than to their suburban neighbors, but studies consistently show that, within these districts, schools with high concentrations of low-income and “minority” students receive fewer instructional resources than others in the same district. And tracking systems exacerbate these inequalities by segregating many low-income and minority students within schools (Kozol, 1991; Taylor & Piche, 1991).


In combination, policies associated with school funding, resource allocations, and tracking leave minority students with fewer and lower-quality books, curriculum materials, laboratories, and computers; significantly larger class sizes; less qualified and experienced teachers; and less access to high-quality curriculum.

The end results of these educational inequalities are increasingly tragic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223640/

So again, are the schools in Black neighborhoods of equal quality to schools in White neighborhoods?

You have to be a pathetic and disgusting person to have an agenda regarding children's education to the point that you will refuse to admit what is clearly obvious. It's a shame you squandered your education being that I've told you at least three times to learn the difference between "your" and "you're" and you still can't figure it out.



So one more time...answer the question without talking about students. Are the schools themselves of equal quality? Yes or no?

[Ivich]

Here is a study that addresses my question. Let's see if you deny this




So again, are the schools in Black neighborhoods of equal quality to schools in White neighborhoods?

You have to be a pathetic and disgusting person to have an agenda regarding children's education to the point that you will refuse to admit what is clearly obvious. It's a shame you squandered your education being that I've told you at least three times to learn the difference between "your" and "you're" and you still can't figure it out.



So one more time...answer the question without talking about students. Are the schools themselves of equal quality? Yes or no?

Do you seriously expect an answer to this?

[Willie Pep 229]

Here is a study that addresses my question. Let's see if you deny this




So again, are the schools in Black neighborhoods of equal quality to schools in White neighborhoods?

You have to be a pathetic and disgusting person to have an agenda regarding children's education to the point that you will refuse to admit what is clearly obvious. It's a shame you squandered your education being that I've told you at least three times to learn the difference between "your" and "you're" and you still can't figure it out.



So one more time...answer the question without talking about students. Are the schools themselves of equal quality? Yes or no?

So in simple terms what do you believe is missing in black schools when compared to white schools?

Actual things, persons?

I can tell you that if you have a county wide school district then all the schools are equally funded and staffed.

Here in Florida schools in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties are all funded equally (intra-county wise) including all the Black neighborhoods.

It is the small predominantly 'white' schools in Northern and Central Florida that are underfunded and understaffed.

From what I understand about New Jersey (one of the States mentioned) the local school districts, (and this is where the de fact segregation sets in), fork up the lion share of funding through property taxes. The State then adds money to the local districts that are unable to meet the minimum requirements.

Now, because the wealthy 'white' towns have revenue to invest, these towns can and do enrich their educational facilities, with more local dollars.

In the end one can definitely find better institutions in wealthy neighborhoods, often White.

So the real question that should be asked, is not Why do white schools have better facilities'? that's obvious, they pay for it locally.

The question that needs to be addressed is, Are we satisfied with the current minimum standard that the State demands, and then supplements?

If the majority 'black' schools are wanting then we need to increase the expenditures to meet proper standards.

But in regard to the majority 'white' schools with better facilities are we suspose to tell them they can't expand/enrich their own schools with their own wealth? That would make no sense.

Should we take money from local wealthy districts and give it to less wealthy districts? That doesn't sound real American.

Whatever discrepancies you see between the two institutions isn't relevant, what needs to be addressed at the State level is, Are we satisfied with the schools in Black communities? If not then the State needs to act.

Of course the simple solution is to have county wide school districts then the avaible funds are more evenly distributed. But as I said townships in NJ literally go back to the Revolution.

This education problem can be addressed and fixed without having to consolidate the school districts.

The State needs to chose an educational standard they are satisfied with, make it happen, and stop comparing them to rich kids schools.

Mom's and Dad's should be allowed to spend their money on their kids if they want to. The other kids are the State's concern.

[travestyny]

Do you seriously expect an answer to this?

It seems like an easy question to answer but being that he has avoided it all this time, no, I don't expect him to ever answer.

[travestyny]

So in simple terms what do you believe is missing in black schools when compared to white schools?

Actual things, persons?

I can tell you that if you have a county wide school district then all the schools are equally funded and staffed.

Here in Florida schools in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties are all funded equally (intra-county wise) including all the Black neighborhoods.

It is the small predominantly 'white' schools in Northern and Central Florida that are underfunded and understaffed.

From what I understand about New Jersey (one of the States mentioned) the local school districts, (and this is where the de fact segregation sets in), fork up the lion share of funding through property taxes. The State then adds money to the local districts that are unable to meet the minimum requirements.

Now, because the wealthy 'white' towns have revenue to invest, these towns can and do enrich their educational facilities, with more local dollars.

In the end one can definitely find better institutions in wealthy neighborhoods, often White.

So the real question that should be asked, is not Why do white schools have better facilities'? that's obvious, they pay for it locally.

The question that needs to be addressed is, Are we satisfied with the current minimum standard that the State demands, and then supplements?

If the majority 'black' schools are wanting then we need to increase the expenditures to meet proper standards.

But in regard to the majority 'white' schools with better facilities are we suspose to tell them they can't expand/enrich their own schools with their own wealth? That would make no sense.

Should we take money from local wealthy districts and give it to less wealthy districts? That doesn't sound real American.

Whatever discrepancies you see between the two institutions isn't relevant, what needs to be addressed at the State level is, Are we satisfied with the schools in Black communities? If not then the State needs to act.

Of course the simple solution is to have county wide school districts then the avaible funds are more evenly distributed. But as I said townships in NJ literally go back to the Revolution.

This education problem can be addressed and fixed without having to consolidate the school districts.

The State needs to chose an educational standard they are satisfied with, make it happen, and stop comparing them to rich kids schools.

Mom's and Dad's should be allowed to spend their money on their kids if they want to. The other kids are the State's concern.

This was a long conversation in another thread, so you may be missing some context. It was part of a thread on the merits of CRT.

No one is arguing that school districts shouldn't be allowed to spend the money they have the way they want to.


It's more along the lines of why schools are still largely segregated in the United States, and what that means for the education that children receive.

CRT basically says this: Critical Race Theory recognizes that racism is more than the result of individual bias and prejudice. It is embedded in laws, policies and institutions that uphold and reproduce racial inequalities.

It states systemic racism is part of American society — from education and housing to employment and healthcare.


It's easy to see how this is correct, which is why "redlining" came into the conversation.


You start here:

A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America

In 1933, faced with a housing shortage, the federal government began a program explicitly designed to increase — and segregate — America's housing stock. Author Richard Rothstein says the housing programs begun under the New Deal were tantamount to a "state-sponsored system of segregation."

The government's efforts were "primarily designed to provide housing to white, middle-class, lower-middle-class families," he says. African-Americans and other people of color were left out of the new suburban communities — and pushed instead into urban housing projects.

Rothstein's new book, The Color of Law, examines the local, state and federal housing policies that mandated segregation. He notes that the Federal Housing Administration, which was established in 1934, furthered the segregation efforts by refusing to insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods — a policy known as "redlining." At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing builders who were mass-producing entire subdivisions for whites — with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/52665...egated-america

and then you get here:

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

American public schools are divided along economic and racial lines, the aftermath of a system that denied capital to families of color for decades.

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

That should make it all clear. When you have that stat that I first mentioned...what was it.....Just pulled it up to get it right.

REPORT: WHITE SCHOOL DISTRICTS RECEIVE $23 BILLION MORE IN FUNDING THAN BLACK DISTRICTS




Then it should be clear. There are specific reasons that these Black neighborhoods have less for schools that is related to what amounts to former legalized racism within the system.





So it's not about what you have personally experienced, but an overall outlook.

But if we want to talk personal experiences, I attended public school in a majority Black neighborhood. I've dealt with classes that literally had NO TEACHER for a month. Meaning we went to a classroom and NO ONE was there. This was an AP History course. When the teacher did arrive, we all had different editions of the books...some badly outdated. I've had teachers take me into their back storage area and sell me extra books to make a quick buck because they weren't being paid well and they knew we weren't being prepared well. These schools were horrible and though I managed to do well and go on to a great University, the schools in theses neighborhoods fail their children. Some teachers really do care, some don't. None are paid enough. But it's the schools themselves that flunk.