Snowflakes in action: the actual reality of "snowflakes" in the world and the consequences

[Toni]

Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the government to discriminate based on race?

DAMN SKIPPY!!!


Oh, that question wasn't for me. But yes, it is wrong for a government to discriminate based on race unless that government is trying to remedy discrimination. It is just like slavery is banned except in prison for punishment. Ya feel me?

So people who were never discriminated against ought to get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin?

People who were never discriminated against DO get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin. Those would be white people.

Do you think that persons of color are no longer discriminated against because of Civil Rights legislation? Because let me tell you, that's not the case.

What government policy, Toni? If you find a law that says only Whites then I join you in getting it repealed.

It's cute that you think that I was only talking about discrimination codified by laws explicitly. You and I both know that not every law is enforced and that law enforcement of all kinds looks the other ways lots of times, when it suits their agenda. People retain bias, no matter what the law says.

Of course, when agencies which are supposed to provide oversite are dramatically underfunded, it's hard to ensure that everyone's rights are respected and protected as they should be.

Here's a link to evolving US law that has, intentionally or not resulted in discrimination against persons of color.

Systematic Inequality and Economic Opportunity

Eliminating racial disparities in economic well-being requires long-term, targeted interventions to expand access to opportunity for people of color.

www.americanprogress.org

Created in 1965, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is charged with enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against job applicants and employees based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.49 Every year, the EEOC receives hundreds of thousands of calls and inquiries, but it lacks the funding and staff necessary to fully ensure that bad actors are held accountable.50

From 1980 through mid-2018, the U.S. population grew by 44 percent—from 227 million to 327 million.51 Today, more than 5.6 million employers employ more than 125 million workers.52 Despite this growth, Congress has refused to significantly increase the agency’s inflation-adjusted budget over this period and has actually reduced the number of employees charged with carrying out the agency’s mission.53 (see Figure 3) In 2018, the EEOC secured $505 million for victims of discrimination, but the agency’s lack of resources has created a substantial and persistent backlog of nearly 50,000 charges.54

While Congress should dramatically expand the EEOC’s budget, the federal government should not be alone in the fight against employment discrimination. States possess the resources and expertise necessary to enact and fully enforce their own civil rights statutes to protect workers of color. Unfortunately, few states provide their anti-discrimination agencies with sufficient resources to tackle this systemic problem, and some states lack enforcement agencies altogether. State anti-discrimination agencies often have large mandates with multiple covered populations and the responsibility to tackle discrimination in both employment and housing. However, none of the 10 states with the highest percentage of Black residents provide these agencies with annual funding of more than 70 cents per resident per year. (see Figure 4) By comparison, in 2015, each of these 10 states had state and local policing expenditures of more than $230 per resident per year—at least 328 times more than what each state spends on enforcing anti-discrimination laws.55 In some states, such as Louisiana, more taxpayer dollars are spent on the governor’s salary than on protecting millions of residents from employment discrimination.56

Lawmakers have also limited the scope of anti-discrimination enforcement by establishing a minimum employee threshold for covered companies. For instance, only companies with 15 or more employees are covered by the EEOC’s racial discrimination laws.57 More than two-thirds of states, including
those with the highest percentages of Black residents, also have minimum employee thresholds for employment discrimination laws to take effect.58 These thresholds jeopardize the economic well-being of people of color who work for smaller employers, such as domestic workers, service workers, and some agricultural workers.

While legislation alone cannot prevent bias, the persistent underfunding of enforcement agencies and exemptions for small companies result in limited accountability for employers that abuse and exploit their workers based on race. Ample evidence demonstrates that racial discrimination in employment and wages remains rampant more than 50 years after the passage of landmark civil rights legislation. In fact, studies show that hiring discrimination against Black people has not declined in decades.59 White applicants are far more likely to be offered interviews than Black and Latinx applicants, regardless of educational attainment, gender, or labor market conditions.60 Full names often attributed to white Americans are estimated to provide the equivalent advantage of eight years of experience.61 Surveys show that more than half of African Americans, 1 in 3 Native Americans, 1 in 4 Asian Americans, and more than 1 in 5 Latinos report experiencing racial discrimination in hiring, compensation, and promotion considerations.62

Employment discrimination perpetuates inequality in economic well-being, especially for Black people. Over the past 40 years, Black workers have consistently endured an unemployment rate approximately twice that of their white counterparts.63 Black households have also experienced 25 percent to 45 percent lower median incomes than their white counterparts, and these disparities persist regardless of educational attainment and household structure.64 In 2017 alone, the median income for Black and Latinx households was $40,258, compared with $68,145 for white households.65 In fact, in 99 percent of U.S. counties, Black boys will go on to make less in adulthood than their white neighbors with comparable backgrounds.66

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So people who were never discriminated against ought to get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin? systemic racially based interference on progress for the race as a whole during both slavery as well as post slavery from the white race riots, property seizure, segregation, and covenants impacting the ability for said race to be able to generate wealth as could the average American which created a self perpetuating wealth gap for said race.

FIFY.

"Held responsible". Interesting choice on words when no one has been "held responsible" for those acts.

 

[Metaphor]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes: and the farmers who were discriminated against were compensated in the Pigford suit, as they ought have been. This has already been posted more than once.

Now: which of the non-white non-men business owners getting priority treatment in the $5b small business scheme were discriminated against on the basis of their sex and class? And if they were discriminated against, why are they being 'compensated' by a scheme that does not investigate any beneficiaries discriminated-against status?

 

[Politesse]

If racial discrimination and abuse are happening in classrooms under the false guise of CRT, that might be a good reason to legislate racial discrimination and abuse. It's not a good reason to rail against CRT itself and try to curtail any honest discussion of race issues in the United States. It's already illegal to abuse a child. Use the law. Don't warp the law, to suit your political agenda.

Two questions:

1. Have you found a part of SB148 bans something that it is unjust to ban?

2. If so, does it ban it in a way that harms non-white people any more than it harms white people ?

Three things:

1. SB148 is not the only law in the country, nor is the nightly contingent of anti-CRT hysteria blanketing our airwaves contingent on its passage or rejection. This thread is about the whole snowflake phenomenon, not just the one snowbank.

2. I've made my position on SB148 clear on this and other threads. It is very obviously a targeted attempt to eliminate education on CRT. Some of its provisions would have the effect of making it impossible to teach about race at all, at least any contemporary research thereupon, without opening yourself up to potential liabilty. Even if a judge would ultimately decide that it is not illegal under SB148 to teach that racial discrimination exists, that in no way protects the teacher both from a legal case and potentially other harms to their teaching career that might come along with that. Few Florida educators make sufficient money that they can survive a fresh lawsuit every time they start off that year's unit on Black History month.

3. The law shouldn't be harming anyone, ideally, and while I don't think it is just or ethical to allow harm to one group disproportionately, I don't think that should be the only measure of good jurisdprudence. Censorship does no one any good over the long term, and though it is more likely to harm people from whom educational resources are already routinely withheld, I'm not unconcerned about the fate of so-called "privileged" students, whose controlled upbringing is hardly preparing them for a career or social life in a modern world that is increasingly suspicious of those very privileges and intolerant of bigotry. This isn't or shouldn't be about who is being hurt "more" whatever that might mean, but about whether or not the law is doing what it is supposed to, for all of us.

 

[Toni]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes: and the farmers who were discriminated against were compensated in the Pigford suit, as they ought have been. This has already been posted more than once.

Now: which of the non-white non-men business owners getting priority treatment in the $5b small business scheme were discriminated against on the basis of their sex and class? And if they were discriminated against, why are they being 'compensated' by a scheme that does not investigate any beneficiaries discriminated-against status?

All of them.

 

[Trausti]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes: and the farmers who were discriminated against were compensated in the Pigford suit, as they ought have been. This has already been posted more than once.

Now: which of the non-white non-men business owners getting priority treatment in the $5b small business scheme were discriminated against on the basis of their sex and class? And if they were discriminated against, why are they being 'compensated' by a scheme that does not investigate any beneficiaries discriminated-against status?

All of them.

Great! The US now has a government sanctioned racial caste system. What could go wrong?

 

[Gospel]

We seem to be going in circles. Could you point me to the actual articles of SB 148 that ban something that is unjust to ban?

None of what SB 148 as it is written unjustly bans anything.
I understand the purpose of SB 148 and agree with it (as it is written) however I'm not in a vacuum and I'm fully aware that SB 148 is also a response to CRT and in fact written under the influence of CRT. The issue is, that some aspects of SB 148 will mostly benefit white people as situations listed as unlawful that offer protections to non-whites are (for historical reasons) less likely to be used by non-whites.

For example:
An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.

Name a single non-white group (I'm not talking about "honorary whites") that would find themselves on the ugly end of efforts to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion? As you know the supreme court ruled that affirmative action is constitutional because it's an effort to remedy discrimination. Private corporations attempting to do something similar can now be sued under SB 148. So what non-whites do you think would use this section of SB 148 to protect themselves?

1. Even if that were true, how does that harm non-white people?

It's not about the harm it may cause non-white people it's about it being a law with sections that solely (if not mostly) benefits white people.

2. Are there historical events that can be used to make all whites arguably guilty/responsible for a national wrongdoing in the past?

Absolutely not. But SB 148 (according to Desantis and friends) is a law to prevent such teachings.

Well, in a sense, yes, but it would be an improper use of the events. And you keep telling me it's not happening, it's a boogieman. And for that reason, there have been no rulings based on SB148 favoring white plaintiffs by 2052. They won due to the CRA. Great! But then, how do white people benefit? Clearly not by filing lawsuits that they lose in court. So, again, I do not see anything in your reply that tells me that SB148 benefits white people any more than everyone else (which would not be a problem if some white people are the only victims here, by the way, but you're saying there are no actual victims), or that it harms non-white people.

Angra, I'm terrible at writing and get fatigued rather quickly when rattling my small brain to spill the beans on my inner thoughts. I've reached my limits for now. But to try to answer as I respect your time and consideration;

The Community Reinvestment Act as well as Affirmative action was a response to historical discrimination against non-whites & not just an acronym that went viral on Twitter & Facebook. I disagree with those as well, and I dream of the day that America finally reaches its destiny where black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Well, Minus the god part.

 

[Toni]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes: and the farmers who were discriminated against were compensated in the Pigford suit, as they ought have been. This has already been posted more than once.

Now: which of the non-white non-men business owners getting priority treatment in the $5b small business scheme were discriminated against on the basis of their sex and class? And if they were discriminated against, why are they being 'compensated' by a scheme that does not investigate any beneficiaries discriminated-against status?

All of them.

Great! The US now has a government sanctioned racial caste system. What could go wrong?

It’s not ‘now.’ It’s been that way since we were first a nation.

 

[Metaphor]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes: and the farmers who were discriminated against were compensated in the Pigford suit, as they ought have been. This has already been posted more than once.

Now: which of the non-white non-men business owners getting priority treatment in the $5b small business scheme were discriminated against on the basis of their sex and class? And if they were discriminated against, why are they being 'compensated' by a scheme that does not investigate any beneficiaries discriminated-against status?

All of them.

Okay luv. If that's the case, and you think the government has a moral duty to compensate people it did not discriminate against, then this scheme is insufficient. All non-white non-men deserve compensation, regardless of being a small business owner and regardless of their wealth and income.

As a woman, Toni, how much does the government owe you for the sex-based discrimination society has inflicted upon you? Is it a one-off compensation or should it be ongoing?

 

[Trausti]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes: and the farmers who were discriminated against were compensated in the Pigford suit, as they ought have been. This has already been posted more than once.

Now: which of the non-white non-men business owners getting priority treatment in the $5b small business scheme were discriminated against on the basis of their sex and class? And if they were discriminated against, why are they being 'compensated' by a scheme that does not investigate any beneficiaries discriminated-against status?

All of them.

Great! The US now has a government sanctioned racial caste system. What could go wrong?

It’s not ‘now.’ It’s been that way since we were first a nation.

Yes, 1000x yes! Those White children born in the last 30 years need to get used being Dalits for the uncleanness runs in their blood!

 

[Toni]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes: and the farmers who were discriminated against were compensated in the Pigford suit, as they ought have been. This has already been posted more than once.

Now: which of the non-white non-men business owners getting priority treatment in the $5b small business scheme were discriminated against on the basis of their sex and class? And if they were discriminated against, why are they being 'compensated' by a scheme that does not investigate any beneficiaries discriminated-against status?

All of them.

Great! The US now has a government sanctioned racial caste system. What could go wrong?

It’s not ‘now.’ It’s been that way since we were first a nation.

Yes, 1000x yes! Those White children born in the last 30 years need to get used being Dalits for the uncleanness runs in their blood!

Not everyone is like you, only comfortable with an entrenched underclass.

 

[Trausti]

Not everyone is like you, only comfortable with an entrenched underclass.

Eh? I don’t think anyone, anyone, should be treated differently by government because of skin color or ancestry. That this could possibly be a controversial view is just soul crushing.

 

[laughing dog]

Not everyone is like you, only comfortable with an entrenched underclass.

Eh? I don’t think anyone, anyone, should be treated differently by government because of skin color or ancestry. That this could possibly be a controversial view is just soul crushing.

Well, that view literally precludes governmental compensatory action whatsoever.

 

[Trausti]

Not everyone is like you, only comfortable with an entrenched underclass.

Eh? I don’t think anyone, anyone, should be treated differently by government because of skin color or ancestry. That this could possibly be a controversial view is just soul crushing.

Well, that view literally precludes governmental compensatory action whatsoever.

If you feel you’ve faced illegal discrimination, make that claim and you could receive compensation. Like the Pigford plaintiffs. That you share a skin hue with someone in the past who was wronged, or committed a wrong, does mean the wrong happened you or you committed the wrong.

 

[Toni]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes: and the farmers who were discriminated against were compensated in the Pigford suit, as they ought have been. This has already been posted more than once.

Now: which of the non-white non-men business owners getting priority treatment in the $5b small business scheme were discriminated against on the basis of their sex and class? And if they were discriminated against, why are they being 'compensated' by a scheme that does not investigate any beneficiaries discriminated-against status?

All of them.

Okay luv. If that's the case, and you think the government has a moral duty to compensate people it did not discriminate against, then this scheme is insufficient. All non-white non-men deserve compensation, regardless of being a small business owner and regardless of their wealth and income.

As a woman, Toni, how much does the government owe you for the sex-based discrimination society has inflicted upon you? Is it a one-off compensation or should it be ongoing?

I’m sorry that your reading comprehension has not been up to your usual standards.

It has been long and well established that non-white people and non-males have been subjected to discrimination woven into the fabric of this nation’s laws, policies and customs. What is under discussion now is a program that is designed to direct aid to those businesses which can demonstrate economic loss due to COVID-19. Because of a long and we’ll established history of discrimination against non white, non-male people in distribution of small business loans, applications from persons of color and women are accepted during the first 3 weeks after which time applications are accepted from all.

An application is not a guarantee of funds.

But if you are all focused on making people demonstrate that they deserve to be considered ( which is what an application does), by all means, let’s require all white make applicants to offer proof that they have never received any benefit of their skin color or sex.

 

[Trausti]

What is under discussion now is a program that is designed to direct aid to those businesses which can demonstrate economic loss due to COVID-19.

Heh, Covid didn’t impact White small businesses at all. Not. At. All.

 

[ZiprHead]

What is under discussion now is a program that is designed to direct aid to those businesses which can demonstrate economic loss due to COVID-19.

Heh, Covid didn’t impact White small businesses at all. Not. At. All.

My wife works for a white male owned business. His $150,000 covid relief loan was forgiven with almost no effort on his part.

 

[Toni]

What is under discussion now is a program that is designed to direct aid to those businesses which can demonstrate economic loss due to COVID-19.

Heh, Covid didn’t impact White small businesses at all. Not. At. All.

There is no dispute, as far as I know, that virtually all small businesses have been adversely affected by COVID-19.

 

[Trausti]

What is under discussion now is a program that is designed to direct aid to those businesses which can demonstrate economic loss due to COVID-19.

Heh, Covid didn’t impact White small businesses at all. Not. At. All.

There is no dispute, as far as I know, that virtually all small businesses have been adversely affected by COVID-19.

So why discriminate on race?

 

[TomC]

My wife works for a white male owned business. His $150,000 covid relief loan was forgiven with almost no effort on his part.

Another guy on the NAACP board with me was a black guy. He became a multimillionaire because he was black. His construction business could bid 10% higher on million dollar jobs because his was the only black owned construction company bidding. He could pocket $100K on every million dollar job. Which he got as fast as he could bid. Because his was the only black owned construction firm licensed to put up multistory frames and pour concrete for highways in the golden years of Affirmative Action plans. From huge corporations to the government, black owned businesses could write their own ticket.
Tom