Posts Tagged ‘racism


Political Correctness vs. Freedom of Thought – The Keith John Sampson Story

This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.


A Discussion Regarding Interconnectedness and Necessity of the Women’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements in the United States

            When viewing America through a contemporary lens, slavery and indentured servitude are among the blemishes of the early American time-period. The perception and treatment of women is often a close second. The slavery issue and the perception provided in contemporary texts of blacks in pre-civil rights America overshadows many of the contributions made by blacks throughout America’s history. The efforts fostered by many women to abolish slavery are also frequently neglected. American women played an integral role in bringing attention to the contemptibility of slavery in the early United States, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s provided significant support to the feminist movement in the same era. Both movements sought similar outcomes, namely parity, but the necessity of the movements, and the quality of results achieved by the movements is questionable.

            Jamestown, Virginia is regarded as one of the earliest European settlements in what became known as the United States. Slavery was not yet a practice in the region, but indentured servitude was, “the colony knew only servants but no slave” (Anonymous, 1971, p. 71). One of the indentured servants was a black man named Anthony Johnson. What is interesting about Johnson, is that he earned his freedom from indentured servitude in a remarkably quick time, “Anthony Johnson was a free man within three years of the landing of the first Negroes at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619” (Anonymous, 1971, p. 71). Johnson was married to a woman named Mary; the Johnson’s were “…the first free Negroes in Virginia” (Anonymous, 1971, p. 71, quoting Torrence). Interestingly, the Johnsons were not only free blacks, they were landowners, and the owner of slaves as well, “these Johnsons not only were owners of landed property, but also apparently held other Negroes as slaves” (Anonymous, 1971, p. 72). One of the earliest contributions of blacks to the American continent was the enslavement of other people.

            The practice of slavery began to spread when it became evident that owning a person was more economical than purchasing an indentured servant for a short period of time, “…the option of buying a slave for life, rather than contracting with a servant for a few years, became more attractive” (Benjamin, Hall, & Rutherford, 2001, p. 159). To the contemporary American the thought of owning another human being is atrocious, yet in early America many thought the practice acceptable; not all who found the practice of slavery acceptable were white.

            As a percentage of the population, blacks were a minority in early America. This did not inhibit free blacks from owning slaves. In Charleston, South Carolina, between the years of “1790” and “1860”, census documents show there were between “17” and “407” black slave owners who owned between “143” and “2,195” slaves (Holloway, 2010, para 7 and imbedded chart). Holloway (2010) also notes that “in New Orleans over 3,000 free blacks owned slaves, about 28 percent of the free Black population in the city” (para. 6). This shows that blacks and whites were equally complicit in the enslavement of a people. It also begs the question, was slavery a race-based issue or was it purely an economic issue for those with the means of purchasing human beings for labor? The practice of slavery endured in America until the Civil War. There were, however, abolitionist movements that worked to end the practice.

            One of the earliest abolitionist movements began in 1833. Lucretia Mott would become a founding mother of women’s rights. Equality for women was not Mott’s only issue; she was an ardent abolitionist as well, “in 1833 Mott, along with Mary Ann M’Clintock and nearly 30 other female abolitionists, organized the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society” (National Park Service, 2012a, para. 2). The abolitionist movement gained another stout supporter in 1840 when future women’s rights activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her husband Henry attended the “World Anti-Slavery Convention” in London in 1840 (National Park Service, 2012b, para. 2). Stanton and Mott, who was a delegate at the Convention, met and found they could not participate at the convention because of their gender. This shun resulted in Mott and Stanton discussing the creation of a “woman’s rights convention” (National Park Service, 2012a).

            The convention was realized approximately eight years later. In mid 1848, “…Mott, Stanton, Mary Ann M’Clintock, Martha Coffin Wright, and Jane Hunt…organized the First Woman’s Rights Convention” (National Park Service, 2012a, para. 3) at Seneca Falls New York. The convention addressed many issues the attendees believed important. Interestingly, suffrage was not a primary issue for the early feminists, “suffrage, however, proved an unwieldy weapon with which to penetrate the perimeter of [public] sphere, and women’s rights activists were ambivalent to it” (Woloch, 2006, p. 192). Woloch (2006) goes on to note, “…the vote was the only resolution that failed to evoke unanimous approval. It was passed, by a small majority, only as a result of the concerted efforts of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass” (p. 193).

            The early female leaders of the abolitionist movement realized that while their actions to end slavery were appreciated, they were not considered equal to their male counterparts. This belief was codified in the Seneca Falls Convention Articles of Belief, one of which stated, “…that women were in some sense slaves too” (The Woman’s Rights Movement, n.d., para. 1). With this in mind, it is not difficult to conclude that the 1840s women’s rights movement grew from the abolitionist movement of the same era.

            Over the next several decades, many changes took place across America. The American Civil War occurred, slavery was abolished, and women continued to fight for equality with men. The abolition of slavery brought many changes to America. The period of Reconstruction saw several blacks elected to local, statewide, and national office, “in 1869, Hiram Rhodes Revels…from Mississippi became the first black in Congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator…” also, “in 1869, Republican Joseph H. Rainey (1832-1887) from South Carolina became the first black member of the U.S. House of Representatives” (Barton, 2001, paras. 17-18), other blacks were elected to the Congress as well as to state and local positions until the Reconstruction period ended and Jim Crow Laws were instituted.

These post-Civil War black elected officials were not the first to serve white constituents. Going back to the pre-Revolutionary War era, history shows that a black man named Wentworth Cheswell held many positions of authority in New England during his life. In 1768 “…[Cheswell] was elected town constable – the first of many offices he held throughout his life” (Barton, 2009, para. 5). Cheswell also served “…twelve years as Justice of the Peace, overseeing trials, settling disputes, and executing deeds, wills, and legal documents” (Barton, 2009, para. 5). In support of the Revolutionary movement Cheswell also, “…undertook the same task as Paul Revere, making an all-night ride to warn citizens of imminent British invasion” (Barton, 2009, para. 6). Cheswell is but one example of the contributions made by blacks in America’s early history. The aforementioned Frederick Douglass is another black man whose contributions to abolition are common knowledge, whereas his work with women’s rights activists is lesser known. What is often neglected in contemporary history teachings are the positions of authority Douglass held following the Civil War,

In his later years Douglass was appointed to several offices. He served as U.S. Marshal of the District of Columbia during Rutherford B. Hayes’ administration. President James Garfield appointed Douglass the District of Columbia Recorder of Deeds.

In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison appointed Frederick Douglass to be the U.S. minister to Haiti. He was later appointed by President Grant to serve as secretary of the commission of Santo Domingo. (Frederick Douglass National Historic Site, n.d., paras. 3-4). 

Many blacks have held positions of authority, owned property and functioned on a level equal with whites throughout America’s history. This is not to infer that all whites were accepting of blacks, it is merely to point out that free blacks in America, albeit slow, were making progress.

Following the conclusion of the Civil War, it was realized that millions of slaves and the children of slaves needed to be integrated into society. Education was one aspect that needed to be addressed. In an 1890 speech to American Colonization society, Pan-Africanism advocate Edward W. Blyden stated, “…since the [Civil] war the South has spent $122,000,000 in the cause of public education, and this year it is pledged to spend $37,000,000, in the benefits of which the Negro is a large participant” (Blyden, 1890, pp. 14-15). Interestingly, Blyden’s speech was not intended to argue for black equality with whites in America, in fact, Blyden’s premise was a three phase solution to what he referred to as the “African Problem” (Blyden, 1890). Blyden wanted educated blacks to migrate to Africa, “…the third, which is the emigration phase, when the Negro, freed in body and in mind, shall bid farewell to these scenes of his bondage and discipline and betake himself to the land of his fathers” (Blyden, 1890, p. 15). For blacks, almost all of who appear to have stayed in America, access to education was the first step on the road to equality.

            For women, the road to equality was a bit different. While the 1840s, women activists did correlate the treatment of women to the condition of slavery; the truth is, women were not enslaved. History shows that, as was true with blacks, the speed of progress toward equality for women was slow, yet, as early as the American Revolution women made significant contributions to the fledgling nation. It is likely that the American Revolution brought about the first significant change regarding the perception of women, “in wartime, women became involved…in the turmoil and conflict of public events” (Woloch, 2006, p. 65). This marks the first significant action of women outside the home, and albeit small, it started an evolutionary mindset in the psyche of American women. The Revolutionary war provided women with the opportunity to “…provide public services as well as to handle enlarged domestic responsibilities, they began to express themselves politically, in groups or as individuals” (Woloch, 2006, p. 65). Over the decades, small gains were made in the expansion of women’s sphere in the public realm. The path paved by the early activists of the 1840s women’s movement lead to an historic occurrence in 1916 when Jeanette Rankin was elected to the United States Congress, “…Rankin secure[d] a GOP nomination for one of Montana’s two At-Large House seats on August 29, 1916” (Office of the Clerk. n.d., para. 3).

            Contemporary history often argues that the responses to progress made by women to expand their collective sphere was distasteful, yet Rankin’s reception in the Congress was quite impressive, “an observer wrote, ‘… When her name was called the House cheered and rose, so that she had to rise and bow twice, which she did with entire self-possession’” (Office of the Clerk, n.d., para. 4). Rankin’s election, while significant, was not the first time a woman held high political office in the United States. Forty years prior to Rankin, in 1887, “Susanna Medora Salter [became] the first woman elected mayor of an American town, in Argonia, Kansas” (Pearson Education, 2007).

            Moving into the 1950s, the quest for equality of race continued. Widely considered a seminal case in the advancement of civil rights is the Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). This decision effectively overturned the policy of separate but equal that the Supreme Court had upheld in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). While the separate but equal doctrine fostered segregation, there is little evidence that segregation was harmful to blacks. In fact, there are examples that show black schools were just as productive as white schools. One example is the story of the East Texas Wiley College Debate team, a team “…which established a ten-year winning streak” (Wiley College, n.d., para. 3) against major black and white university debate teams around the United States.

            In the post Brown v. Board of Education America, the forced integration of blacks and whites resulted in numerous riots and other backlash from white people at all levels of the population and government, many of these response are well documented in contemporary history, usually to show the ignorance and hatefulness of white people. What is lesser known is that there were many in the black community who also found the decision in Brown just as unsettling. Zora Neale Hurston, a prominent black author, wrote in a letter to the Orlando Sentinel, 

If there are not adequate Negro schools in Florida, and there is some residual, some inherent and unchangeable quality in white schools, impossible to duplicate anywhere else, then I am the first to insist that Negro Children of Florida be allowed to share this boon. But if there are adequate Negro schools and prepared instructors and instruction, then there is nothing different except the presence of white people.

For this reason, I regard the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court as insulting rather than honoring my race. Since the days of the never-to-be-sufficiently-deplored Reconstruction, there has been current the belief that there is no greater delight to Negroes than the physical association with whites. (Hurston, 1955, paras. 3-4) 

Hurston went on to say; 

It is well known that I have no sympathy nor respect for the ‘Tragedy of color’ school of thought among us, whose fountain-head is the pressure group concerned in this court ruling. I can see no tragedy in being too dark to be invited to a white school social affair. The Supreme Court would have pleased me more if they had concerned themselves about enforcing the compulsory education provisions for Negroes in the South as is done for white children. The next 10 years would be spent in appointing truant officers and looking after conditions in the home from which the children come. Use to the limit what we already have (Hurston, 1955, para. 11) 

Many blacks were not pleased with the Brown court decision and arguably felt that blacks could (and would) succeed and prosper without whites forcing integration or other special treatment centered on race. There are numerous examples of blacks who broke through the color barrier through hard work, dedication, and excellence in their chosen field; Joseph Rainey, Alonzo Ransier, Josiah Walls, Richard Cain, John R. Lynch, William Hastie III, Thurgood Marshall, Jackie Robinson, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlin, Langston Hughes, and Zora Neal Hurston are just a few examples. Jackie Robinson, for instance, was brought into play major league baseball, he showcased his talents, and in his very first year playing with the Brooklyn Dodgers, 1947, he was the Rookie of the Year. Robinson was, incidentally, the first ever Rookie of the Year. Two years later, he was elected baseballs Most Valuable Player (, 2010), this occurred seven years before the Supreme Court decision in Brown.

            Noted black economist, Thomas Sowell pointed out, 

…the rapid growth of that [black] middle class began even before the civil-rights revolution of the 1960s, much less the racial quotas and preferences that began in the 1970s. The rise of blacks into professional and similar occupations was faster in the five years preceding passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years following its passage. (Elder, FrontPage Magazine – Grand Ol’ White Man’s Party?, 1999, paras. 10-11, quoting Thomas Sowell) 

The growth of the black middle class, and the success of other blacks prior to the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1960s, seems to imply that inequality due to race was decreasing throughout America.

            The Brown decision may have also been the beginning of the 1960s women’s movement. Rupp (2005) notes that the Brown case grew “from the group of mostly mothers whose challenge to the segregated school system of Topeka, Kansas, contributed to the Supreme Court decision declaring segregation inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)…” (p. 54). It is possible that the effectiveness of the women surrounding the Brown case influenced the women who generated the 1960s feminist movement. Woloch (2006) observes that the “civil rights movement…paved the way for [the] feminist resurgence [of the 1960s]” (p. 512). Woloch (2006) also notes, “[the] feminist revival in the mid-1960s began in the wake of freedom rides, voter registration drives, campus upheavals, teach-ins, sit-ins, and antidraft demonstrations. But it was the civil rights movement, above all, that paved the way for feminist resurgence” (p. 512).

            Throughout much of the twentieth century, women had the choice to work or remain in the home. Evidence suggests that as the century matured, more and more women chose to work outside the home, and in an increasing number of fields, “by 1960, it had become the norm for middle-class white married women to perform paid work outside of the home. By 1962, married women accounted for nearly two-thirds of the female workforce” (Moss & Thomas, 2010, p.143). Women were not only participating in greater numbers, and in more occupations, women were also attending college in greater numbers, “at the same time that they were entering the paid workforce in ever-greater numbers, more and more women were going to college and earning degrees. In 1961, women received over 40 percent of all baccalaureate degrees awarded” (Moss & Thomas, 2010, pp. 143-144). With all of the progress women had actualized, there was still the belief that more needed to be accomplished.

            The feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s seems to have changed the definition of equality to give women an advantage. Evidence of this lays in the issues the radicals of the 1960s feminist movement espoused. One such issue appears to be that of motherhood, “we do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation in industry or the professions on the other” (Woloch, 2006, p.519). In order to cement this issue, the National Organization of Women (NOW) argued to shift the responsibility from those who are capable of creating life (women), on to the whole of society, “above all we reject the assumption that these problems are the unique responsibility of each individual women, rather than a basic social dilemma which society must solve” (Woloch, 2006, p. 519). Women are the magnificent machines that create the life of another human being, the idea that society as whole holds more responsibility for the raising of children is very likely an argument that the founding mothers of the 1840s, women’s movements would have found repulsive. Women are in a unique position in American culture, most have the option to work outside the home and all have the option to bear children, men do not have this choice.

            Another defining issue of the various feminist movements is the concept of equal pay for equal work. It is difficult to argue that gender should, in some way, determine pay, yet history is rife with examples where pay may have been affected by gender. Recent studies however, show that the pay gap is virtually non-existent when men and women follow the same career path. The gap only exists when women leave the workforce for a period of time, “a recent study of business school graduates from the University of Chicago found that in the early years after graduating, men and women had ‘nearly identical labor incomes and weekly hours worked’” (Leonhardt, 2010, para.11). When a choice is made to leave the job market, then a significant pay disparity becomes evident, “…15 years after graduation, the men were making about 75 percent more than the women” (Leonhardt, 2010, para. 12). This disparity was somewhat erased in cases where men and women followed an identical career path, “The study — done by Marianne Bertrand, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz — did find one subgroup of women whose careers resembled those of men: women who had no children and never took time off” (Leonhardt, 2010, para.12). When the work produced is equal, the pay received is equal. It is not just in the workforce where women have achieved equality or exceeded men, “women hold 57% of bachelor’s degrees and 58% of graduate degrees. Women drive the marketplace, purchasing 83% of all goods. In 2007, they bought 53% of cars. Women hold $14 trillion in assets” (Callahan, 2009, para. 1).

            Women have, in a sense, achieved, and in some areas, exceeded what the 1840s women’s movements set out to accomplish. While the result has been a positive for women, there could be negatives as well as positives for the society as whole, “…we could hardly imagine women’s wage work without raising questions about family life and assessing the relationship of the different roles of women and men to individual mobility and achievement (Kessler-Harris, 2004, p. 187). Hoffman (1998) found, “daughters of employed mothers have been found to have higher academic achievement…” (para. 13), yet in the same discussion, Hoffman (1998) notes “… sons of employed mothers in the middle class showed lower school performance and lower I.Q. scores during the grade school years than full-time homemakers” (para. 13). Women who chose to have families as well as work outside the home may have a significant impact on future generations.

            The civil rights movement of the 1960s began in the 1950s as a peaceful movement, “countless working-class black activists quietly engaged in a decades-long battle for access to good jobs, desegregation of social spaces, and the right to vote” (Krochmal, 2010, p. 924). While the aforementioned Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was perceived by some in the black community as a significant victory, it was not enough and the predominantly non-violent activists continued their quest. A decade after the Brown decision, the United States Federal government provided another piece of legislation designed to answer many of the complaints presented by the black community; the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act “…did not just dismantle Jim Crow as a legal regime in the South. It prohibited racial discrimination in nearly all aspects of American economic and social life” (Reno, 2012, p. 3).

            The Civil Rights Act in theory should have been a victory for the black community, yet following its passage, some in the Civil Rights movement became much more aggressive. Following the death of two white civil rights activists in 1964, Auerbach (2005) notes, “if there were gonna take some deaths to do it, the death of a white college student would bring on more attention to what was going on than for a black college student getting it” (p. 10 quoting Dave Dennis via journalist Howell Raines). In 1965, government again intervened in the Civil Rights movement and passed the “…the Voting Rights Act of 1965…” (Reno, 2012, p. 3). This legislation as well as “subsequent Supreme Court decisions…created an energetic bureaucracy and expansive body of law that sought to stamp out racial discrimination” (Reno, 2012, p. 3). This legislation also should have been a positive for the black community, yet it was not. In fact, while the non-violent protesting of Martin Luther King and his followers continued, a new anti-white, and subsequently violent faction grew out of the movement. In 1966 “Stokely Carmichael, [the] newly elected president of the Student Non-Violent Cordinating [sic] Committee (SNCC)…terminated its bi-racial commitment, declaring that ‘whites’ role in the movement has now ended’” (Auerbach, 2005, p. 10). Carmichael justified this sudden change in a bi-racial solution by claiming, “…white participants [were] colonizers, and insisting that black freedom depended on black power…” (Auerbach, 2005, p. 10). Carmichael then “…founded the Black Panther Party” (Auerbach, 2005, p. 10) in Alabama.

            Some of the blacks in the civil rights movement appear to have wanted a violent revolution instead of a slow, yet steady integration of the races into the American culture. For myriad reasons, blacks did not believe they achieved equality. The lack of progress may have been attributed to the shift to violence by some in the civil rights movement, as well as the good intentions of the United States Government. Sheldon Richman (2004) wrote, 

Brown and the follow-on cases, despite presumably good intentions, moved many black children from excellent schools filled with dedicated adults into schools where they were regarded as alien invaders and where teachers often thought of them as fit only for low-level jobs. In the social engineer’s eyes, this was racial progress. (Today fewer than half of black students graduate.) Black Americans are still recovering from such beneficence. (para. 15) 

Good intentions often do not produce good results. It appears that the intervention of United States government may have also been a factor in blacks failing to mitigate the racial divide. History shows that individual hard work, dedication, and production are the key ingredients to erasing negative perceptions.

Something happened in America in the late 1950s and 1960s that seems to have caused a redefining of what equal and equality meant. For women, it seems that equality meant the freedom from being a mother; for blacks, it seems to have meant receiving something without working for it. It should be noted that from the early 1600s, the white Europeans who settled in America were poor and in debt. It took the white race roughly 280 years to create the success and wealth that became the envy of the world. Blacks were emancipated in 1865, and in less than 100 years, they were demanding what had taken whites nearly 350 years to earn.

The women’s movement and the civil rights movement each sought similar outcomes, equity. Women wanted equity of gender, the civil rights movement wanted equity of race. Evidence presented shows that each group was succeeding in obtaining the desired equity without a specific movement, and without violence. Evidence also shows that blacks were integrating the culture slowly. Blacks were moving into fields dominated by whites, and the black middle class was growing prior to the civil rights movement. Women succeeded in expanding their sphere into the public and business realms without the women’s rights movement of the 1960s. Change needs to occur over time and it must occur based on merit, effort and hard work. Susanna Medora Salter, Jeanette Rankin, Zora Neal Hurston, Thurgood Marshall, and Jackie Robinson were not the exceptions to the rule; they are proof that cultural change happens when individual talent, drive and hard work are the measure of a person, regardless of gender or race.



Anonymous. (1971). Anthony Johnson, Free Negro, 1622. The Journal of Negro History, 56 (1), 71-76. Retrieved November 18, 2012 from


Auerbach, J. S. (2005). Means and Ends in the 1960s. Society, 42(6), 9-13. Retrieved November 17, 2012 from EBSCO Host.


Barton, D. (2001, January 1). WallBuilders – Newsletters – Black History Issue 2001. Retrieved November 23, 2012, from


Barton, D. (2009, February). WallBuilders – Issues and Articles – A Black Patriot: Wentworth Cheswell. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from (2010). Jackie Robinson Statistics and History. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from Baseball Reference:


Benjamin, T., Hall, T., & Rutherford, D. (2001). The Atlantic World in the Age of Empire. Belmont, CA: Cengage.


Blyden, E. W. (1890, January 19). The African problem, and the method of its solution. The annual discourse delivered at the seventy-third anniversary of the American colonization society, in the Church of the Covenant, Washington, D.C., January 19, 1890, by Edward W. Blyden. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from


Callahan, Maureen. (2009, July 19). Women on top – men worry they’re falling behind in a ‘he-cession’ – they’re right. New York Post, 29. Retrieved December 9, 2012, from ProQuest Newsstand.


Elder, L. (1999, April 14). FrontPage Magazine – Grand Ol’ White Man’s Party? Retrieved December 3, 2012, from


Frederick Douglass National Historic Site. (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2012, from


Hoffman, L. W., PhD. (1998). The Effects of the Mother’s Employment on the Family and the Child. In Parenthood in America. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from


Holloway, J. (2010). The Black Slave Owners. Retrieved November 18, 2012, from


Hurston, Z. N. (August, 1955) Court Order Can’t Make Races Mix. Letter to the Editor, Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved November 17, 2012 from


Kessler-Harris, A. (2004, Winter). Reframing the History of Women’s Wage Labor: Challenges of a Global Perspective. Journal of Women’s History, 15. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved November 18, 2012 from Project Muse.


Krochmal, M. (2010). An Unmistakably Working-Class Vision: Birmingham’s Foot Soldiers and Their Civil Rights Movement. The Journal of Southern History, LXXVI (4). Retrieved December 11, 2012, from EBSCO Host.


Leonhardt, D. (2010, August 3). A Labor Market Punishing to Mothers. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from


Moss, G., & Thomas, E. (2010). Moving On: The American People since 1945 (4th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall/Pearson.


National Park Service. (2012a). Lucretia Mott – Women’s Rights National Historical Park. Retrieved November 29, 2012, from


National Park Service. (2012b). Elizabeth Cady Stanton – Women’s Rights National Historical Park. Retrieved November 29, 2012, from


Office of the Clerk. (n.d.). Women in Congress. Retrieved November 23, 2012, from


Pearson Education. (2007). Famous Firsts by American Women, 1587–1900. Retrieved December 9, 2012, from


Reno, R. (2012). The Public Square. First Things: A Monthly Journal Of Religion & Public Life, (223), 3-7. Retrieved December 1, 2012 from EBSCO Host.


Richman, S. (November, 17, 2004) How Brown v. Board of Education Throttled Black Schooling. Retrieved November 17, 2012 from


Rupp, L. (2004). From Rosie the Riveter to the Global Assembly Line: American Women on the World Stage. Magazine of History, 18(4), 53-57. Retrieved December 6, 2012, from Research Library.


The Woman’s Rights Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2012, from


Wiley College. (n.d.). Wiley College | A place Where Every Student Can Succeed. Retrieved December 8, 2012, from


Woloch, N. (2006). Women and the American Experience. (E. Barrosse, Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.




Ron Paul is a racist… but Obama isn’t?

Original found here.

Imagine if Paul campaign launched ‘Whites for Ron Paul’

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, February 24, 2012

Imagine if Ron Paul announced a national campaign called ‘Whites for Ron Paul’ – he’d be vilified as a racist. And yet Barack Obama has done the equivalent of precisely that with his launch of ‘African Americans for Obama’.

The program urges black Americans to volunteer their time by making calls, organizing events and going door to door in their neighborhoods encouraging other African Americans to vote for Obama.

Not only is Obama playing the race card in an attempt to pressure black Americans into voting for him, he is also violating the separation between church and state. In the video promo for the campaign, Obama urges black people to pressure churches into supporting his administration by getting his message out via “the faith community”. He also calls on voters to become “congregation captains”.

Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.

“I thought race didn’t matter Mr. President?” asks Chad Hasty. “I don’t think MLK would be too pleased with you at all. African-Americans for Obama? Give me a break. Under this President, more blacks are unemployed. More blacks are on food stamps. If I had to bet though, Obama will still pull 93% of the black vote. Again, just a wild guess.”

As part of his efforts to lock down the black community as a voting bloc, Obama has arrived in Florida accompanied by an invasion of rappers and NBA basketball stars – all at taxpayer expense.

“The group — which organizers said includes Magic Johnson, Alonzo Mourning and NBA Commissioner David Stern — will meet with President Obama for a $30,000-a-plate fundraiser at the (actual) home court of Dallas Mavericks guard Vince Carter in his Isleworth mansion,” reports the Orlando Sentinel.

The expensive fundraising trip is timed to coincide with Sunday’s 61st NBA All-Star Game at Orlando’s Amway Center.

An expensive new basketball shoe launched to capitalize on the event caused mayhem at a Florida mall last night. Riot police were called after crowds attempted to rush into a branch of Foot Locker to purchase the shoe before closing time.


Racism flowchart: Are you a racist?

(Original here)


Why Do Liberals Hate Conservative Minorities?

Bobby Jindal

There are few things that drive the Left crazier than minority conservatives. We’re race traitors, parrots, puppets, hypocrites, House Niggas, Aunt Tomasinas, whores, and sellouts.

Liberals only love American Dream stories when minority politicians turn out like Barack Obama.

American success stories like Bobby Jindal, however, are their worst nightmare. It’s a slap in the face of leftist identity politics for a minority conservative to succeed in politics on a platform of faith, self-reliance, free market advocacy, and individual responsibility. And to succeed in the South? Intolerable!

Asian Week stooge Emil Guillermo penned a resentful screed today launching a tired, effete attack on Jindal as a “Man of No Color.” He cannot stand that Jindal rejects 1960s-era tribal ideology: Continue reading ‘Why Do Liberals Hate Conservative Minorities?’


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain