"Poll question: All Black District or Black People in all districts?"
Let's say a state has five congressional districts and the population of the state is 20% black. You can draw congressional district lines all sorts of ways but the choice comes down to either:
1. Create one all black district and leaving the other four districts without black voters; or
2. Spread out the black votes so each district is 20% black.
If you had to pick one of the two which one would you choose and explain your answer.
2. "I want to be in all the districts." In response to Reply # 0
all black would not be beneficial financially. less funding for schools, neigbhorhood improvement, etc. property values go down if the black % goes over a certain threshold.
3. "this is the toughest question for me around gerrymandering reform" In response to Reply # 0
i lean towards 20% in each district bc within the Dem party, thats a very sizable voting bloc. it on us to hold them accountable/earn our vote at that point.
the all black district will have a black rep no matter what. they wont get sh*t done, sh*t wont change and apathy increases.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79574 posts
Tue Jun-27-17 10:20 AM
7. "It's not possible for everyone to flourish" In response to Reply # 4
but I could definitely see a strong black community where our dollars circulate. I could also see a lot of jealousy from those other four white districts.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
Atillah Moor Member since Sep 05th 2013 13825 posts
Tue Jun-27-17 11:20 AM
10. "This is what gets me -- how folks don't seem to get the black dollar" In response to Reply # 7
>but I could definitely see a strong black community where our >dollars circulate.
I could also see a lot of jealousy from >those other four white districts.
Which is fine. They are always going to be a problem regardless. Better to have the power of the black dollar alongside it than to have the jealousy and no black dollar
14. "its a good idea in theory but we don't have the infrastructure" In response to Reply # 7
>but I could definitely see a strong black community where our >dollars circulate. I could also see a lot of jealousy from >those other four white districts.
39. "RE: idk bout that...MD is a good example imo" In response to Reply # 17
>Bmore and PG determine state elections and both gvt >infrastructures are 'run' by us > >now getting everyone on the same page is an issue
And how is that going?
Plus we're talking about 2 different things, you're talking a majority voting block while above what was being referenced to was an all black community with all black businesses, government, utilities, literally everything a community needs to function.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79574 posts
Tue Jun-27-17 10:17 AM
5. "well that sounds like segregation " In response to Reply # 0
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
"The court’s solution required that states create majority-minority districts — districts in which the majority of the voting-age population belonged to a single minority. With voting that occurred largely along racial lines, these districts allowed minority voters to elect their candidates of choice.
But a fascinating development occurred in the years since. These districts, rather than giving African Americans more political power, might have actually started to deprive them of it. Majority-minority districts, by concentrating the minority vote in certain districts, have the unintended consequence of diluting their influence elsewhere. Experts say some Republican legislatures have capitalized on this new reality, redistricting in their political favor under the guise of majority-minority districts."
Double 0 DJ/Producer/Artist Producer in Kidz In The Hall ------------------------------------------- twitter: @godouble0 IG: @godouble0 www.thinklikearapper.com
18. "In this scenario.....Red." In response to Reply # 0
Considering the amount of wealth many black communities have in comparison to other communities, it would be best to have one district where the vote would be sown up versus having aggressively campaign for that representation across several districts.
Ideally, people would vote based on issues alone but we know that's not the case. I'm speaking as a member of one of those gerrymandered districts in NC. I have a much greater probability of catching the ear of my representative here (who's half black) then I would if I had switched my voting district to where I was (Chapel Hill). Also, there are fewer levels of wealth classes in my district so everyone's pretty much in agreement already (which helps for community organizing) politically. MY district is arguably the hardest blue district in NC.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79574 posts
Wed Jun-28-17 09:23 AM
35. "I'm peaking in so you might be right but.." In response to Reply # 33
I thought it was about more than housing
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
25. "for Whites yes...." In response to Reply # 23
For those other groups??? Nah... and I'm sorry, I just don't think gay belongs in that grouping....Matter of fact I think they're a prime example of how you can benefit and make strides by having representation in every corner possible.
I don't see any of those communities actually flourishing financially. They're existing and surviving, yes.
>I agree spreading out makes black people less of a target but >weakens power
>consolidating creates power at the expense of being a larger >target > >Again you see that for the black person in America the >situation is ultimately a lose lose. We will always be >targeted
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
38. "Self segregation would seem to make control by the majority easier" In response to Reply # 34
to achieve though.
Culture definition also comes into play here as well. Is the goal (according to the post) to empower a culture or empower an underserved, under rewarded, continually persecuted minority group?
If you define hip-hop as a culture (which many do, but I don't want this to turn into a discussion on that), then I'd say that it's status on the world stage now is a direct result of spreading out NOT staying clustered.
and when cultures stay clustered they grow. Haven't you >noticed that unless black density can be controlled it must be >destroyed by white culture?
Atillah Moor Member since Sep 05th 2013 13825 posts
Wed Jun-28-17 10:21 AM
40. "which type of targeting do you prefer? Targeted with power or without?" In response to Reply # 38 Wed Jun-28-17 10:25 AM by Atillah Moor
those are your options. How easy it is for THEM is dependent upon how easy WE make it e.g hip hop and how it was overrun and ultimately supports white culture and supremacy financially
I also want to add that when black people are concentrated and about THEIR business it excites other black people in other parts of the world and thus adds to the power of the collective whole. the US CRM had a direct effect on African politics and the same would happen today should we be concentrated. It's why we got integration and not independence.
>Culture definition also comes into play here as well. Is the >goal (according to the post) to empower a culture or empower >an underserved, under rewarded, continually persecuted >minority group?
It can and should be both (if were talking black folks)
>If you define hip-hop as a culture (which many do, but I don't >want this to turn into a discussion on that), then I'd say >that it's status on the world stage now is a direct result of >spreading out NOT staying clustered.
Who spread it? black people working for black people and thus their communities or black people working for white people?
Now imagine a black wall street invested in Hip Hop? Can you see how the money trail would differ from what it is now?
47. "I prefer no targeting at all" In response to Reply # 40
>those are your options. How easy it is for THEM is dependent >upon how easy WE make it e.g hip hop and how it was overrun >and ultimately supports white culture and supremacy >financially
Was hip hop overrun or were we so amped about the attention we were receiving that we readily offered it to any and all who would receive it?
>I also want to add that when black people are concentrated and >about THEIR business it excites other black people in other >parts of the world and thus adds to the power of the >collective whole. the US CRM had a direct effect on African >politics and the same would happen today should we be >concentrated. It's why we got integration and not >independence.
It does indeed. No argument there. No comment on the integration vs. independence....that's a whole other convo.
>>Culture definition also comes into play here as well. Is the >>goal (according to the post) to empower a culture or empower >>an underserved, under rewarded, continually persecuted >>minority group? > >It can and should be both (if were talking black folks)
I believe our culture(s) already have a ton of power. And I don't think it's being harnessed effectively.
>>If you define hip-hop as a culture (which many do, but I >don't >>want this to turn into a discussion on that), then I'd say >>that it's status on the world stage now is a direct result >of >>spreading out NOT staying clustered. > >Who spread it? black people working for black people and thus >their communities or black people working for white people?
Both. Very much both.
>Now imagine a black wall street invested in Hip Hop? Can you >see how the money trail would differ from what it is now?
There wouldn't be much difference IMO. Hip Hop as a culture hasn't lived up to its promise IMO. It's brought many people out of poverty at the expense of the same group of people that it appeals and sells itself to. I love hip hop just as much as anybody else on this site.... but we've had glimpses of black wall street invested in Hip Hop already....and that peek hasn't demonstrated to me that we'd see much difference. Still be somebody with power and money using somebody with no power and money.
Atillah Moor Member since Sep 05th 2013 13825 posts
Wed Jun-28-17 12:05 PM
49. "We all do. Ain't happening in America " In response to Reply # 47 Wed Jun-28-17 12:05 PM by Atillah Moor
greater minds came to this conclusion decades ago. Not sure how many more black people have to be murdered by law enforcement and the public at large for people to understand that
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79574 posts
Wed Jun-28-17 12:40 PM
51. "But it's not like WE gave it away. " In response to Reply # 47
All it takes is one or 2 tastemakers to give a few white folks access and the rest is history.
Reminds me of Jada Pinkets wack argument about putting white people on the cover of Jet and Essence if we wanted more Black women on Cosmo.
or here is another example. Baseball. The negro league was the shit but once MLB found out they integrated and the rest is history. Sure, MLB is huge but we lost something special.
You can't really integrate with white folks and expect to prosper as a community. A few will get in but the rest will struggle or maybe even be worse off because al the people with real money and influence have moved to white areas.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
56. ""All it takes is" = we though. lol.. They let em in, WE let em put their..." In response to Reply # 51 Wed Jun-28-17 01:12 PM by FLUIDJ
feet up on the table even...took advantage of and ate the food they offered us too....
>All it takes is one or 2 tastemakers to give a few white >folks access and the rest is history. > >Reminds me of Jada Pinkets wack argument about putting white >people on the cover of Jet and Essence if we wanted more Black >women on Cosmo.
LOL, c'mon now....don't put that b.s. on me. I ain't said nothing like that.
>or here is another example. Baseball. The negro league was the >shit but once MLB found out they integrated and the rest is >history. Sure, MLB is huge but we lost something special.
Depends on what the end game was. That's yet to be defined in this very post. Is the end game financial freedom ? Is the end game higher standing in society as a whole? Is it independence?? if it's independence, then independence from what/who?
>You can't really integrate with white folks and expect to >prosper as a community. A few will get in but the rest will >struggle or maybe even be worse off because al the people with >real money and influence have moved to white areas.
Again...prosperity has a monetary connotation. What's the overall goal of this movement? Money isn't self generating, there has to be a conduit and participation with those outside the community in order for growth to happen. You can't take 1 million people with $300 each, put em in an isolated region with limited resources and expect them to magically prosper with no interaction with the outside world. It's mathematically and physically impossible.
The ideal that you all are touting is very noble indeed....but it's idealistic and not realistic. Sorry for being a realist.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
> >If you define hip-hop as a culture (which many do, but I don't >want this to turn into a discussion on that), then I'd say >that it's status on the world stage now is a direct result of >spreading out NOT staying clustered. >
45. "I didn't add a qualifier to that on purpose. I didn't say it was better " In response to Reply # 44
or worse.....
> >> >>If you define hip-hop as a culture (which many do, but I >don't >>want this to turn into a discussion on that), then I'd say >>that it's status on the world stage now is a direct result >of >>spreading out NOT staying clustered. >> > >Spreading out made it worse. >
48. "Not implying that at all. My full statement summerizes the point I was" In response to Reply # 46
making pretty succinctly. "If you define hip-hop as a culture (which many do, but I don't want this to turn into a discussion on that), then I'd say that it's status on the world stage now is a direct result of spreading out NOT staying clustered. "
It's anybody's guess as to whether the status on the world stage is good or bad. The point was that we can all agree that it has influence and power to generate $$$.
>your argument > >"Self segregation would seem to make control by the majority >easier" > >that's not implying Hip Hop is better off because it's not >self segregation ?
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79574 posts
Wed Jun-28-17 12:34 PM
50. "The problem with your argument is who is benefitting the most from it?" In response to Reply # 48
If WE as Black folk aren't the primary beneficiaries than it doesn't really matter how far it's spread out.
I think your example is off.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
If you take the examples given in the OP, it means some one running for office in a district with only 20 percent Black can ignore them and use the 80 percent to get elected. Divide and conquer.
54. "BTW, Self-Segregation is WAY BETTER than forced Segregation" In response to Reply # 22
You sound like you on some "why the black kids all sit at the same table".
>What you're describing is essentially segregation. >Self segregation is no better than forced segregation. > >It's easy for a group of people to vote against your best >interest if they don't look you in the eyes everyday. > > >"Get ready....for your blessing....."
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
58. "Not at all. This post is strictly about real estate...or so I thought." In response to Reply # 54
I'm a proud product of the greatest HBCU on earth....North Carolina A&T State University...so i'm def. not on some "why the black kids all sit at the same table".....
>You sound like you on some "why the black kids all sit at >the same table".
80. "Choosing to attend an HBCU isn't self segregation. " In response to Reply # 74
HBCU's are not segregated.
>"Self segregation is no better than forced segregation." > > >********** >"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then >they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson > >"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
60. "Those glory days are over unfortunately. Attempting to go back" In response to Reply # 55
>Before integration, there was more unity, a feeling of >belonging, community businesses, schools, etc.
To that specific type of society in modern times is unrealistic and ignores everything that was gained. I think a lot of those elders were also the ones that didn't play an active role in the fight.....
Atillah Moor Member since Sep 05th 2013 13825 posts
Wed Jun-28-17 02:42 PM
64. "it's not for us to spec on what was or was not experienced " In response to Reply # 60 Wed Jun-28-17 02:44 PM by Atillah Moor
by our elders living in those days.
>To that specific type of society in modern times is >unrealistic and ignores everything that was gained. I think a >lot of those elders were also the ones that didn't play an >active role in the fight.....
again -- tell this to the other groups doing it right now and thriving or at least not having their community shot up and left in the streets
Not sure what kind of model you're envisioning as being effective. Would your HBCU thrive with 60% white students?
67. "Those days *are* past, but they do make some valid points" In response to Reply # 60
>To that specific type of society in modern times is >unrealistic and ignores everything that was gained. I think a >lot of those elders were also the ones that didn't play an >active role in the fight.....
It's the difference between Black folk knowing that things are wrong, and that work needs to be done to get things for ourselves that we control
to
Drinking the kool-aid (somewhat) and the focus goes from building our own to having more access to white society. Carter G. Woodson's "The Miseducation of the Negro" touched on similar ideas. W.E.B. Dubois also espoused similar sentiments.
Atillah Moor Member since Sep 05th 2013 13825 posts
Thu Jun-29-17 10:44 PM
88. "My point is we don't know what kind of fight elders had or didn't have" In response to Reply # 60
Back then. Was everyone in the streets? No, but I'm sure there were many day to day struggles and battles many had to face that didn't make the news or books.
71. "self segregation is VERY different than forced segregation." In response to Reply # 22
Forced segregation limits economic and political self-determination due to legal hurdles.
But if i still have legal access to all rights and benefits as a citizen (including jobs, education, health care and legal protections) but then *choose* to live among those of the same background/ethnicity in an effort to protect me and mine?
78. "This reply is the reason ppl need to UNDERSTAND history." In response to Reply # 22 Thu Jun-29-17 04:32 AM by Boogie Stimuli
And read it thoroughly beyond the narrative given to us by white people.
Integration was the white establishment's idea.
For some reason, we still view it as some stride for Black people.
The white establishment simply replaces outdated white supremacist models. For instance... All we wanted was buses for our children to get to school, which showed that "separate but equal" (plessy v ferguson) was a lie. They refused to give us buses and make our schools equal but were cool with offering us integration. The theory of integration is white supremacist in itself, as if revolves around the idea that Black people can only learn among white people (which is obviously false since Black people were self-taught in the 1800s and even taught white people, and many of our greatest minds came from that segregated era) when the only issue we had was no funding for our schools (children walking 18 miles round-trip, having to gather their own firewood, etc.)
Thurgood Marshall didn't raise the issue of integration in the federal district court of Summerton, South Carolina. It wasn't even in his briefs. He pushed integration at the suggestion of Judge Julius Waring. You can look into Marshall's friendship with J. Edgar Hoover and hatred of "militant" Black activists such as T.R.M. Howard who criticized the FBI for their failure to properly investigate the killings of George W. Lee and Emmett Till. Kenneth Clark also found that Black children in integrated schools were more likely to have lower self-esteem according to his doll test. He presented evidence from where he tried the test on 13 Black children in South Carolina which had "incomplete segregation" at the time, and they preferred the white doll. He knew this was unscientific, because he'd done it in Massachusetts (integrated at the time) and they also preferred the white doll. But he'd also done it in Arkansas (segregated at the time), and those Black children preferred the BLACK doll, yet he purposely left this out of the evidence. White people have long understood that our presence in a sea of them is the worst thing for us.
The word integration isn't in the constitution. The only place it appears in the law is in Anti-Trust Law. It deals with mergers and one of the consequences of a merger is that one of the parties loses identity (vertical integration). Now let THAT sink it. So-called civil rights also gave them access to our financial market. It wasn't based on the 14th Ammendment, it was based on the Commerce Clause. Think of the lynching of Black men who tried to own businesses (Ida B. Wells' wake up call) and the burning of Black Wall Street. Calvin Coolidge said "the business of America is business." Ergo, we took America a moral problem and got a business solution which was detrimental to us.
Shout out to Attorney Alton Maddox. He broke most of that down a long time ago.
79. "I never stated it as a stride or a total win." In response to Reply # 78
But I stand by the statement that self segregation is no better. Even more so in 2017 where the new world order is in full effect.
>And read it thoroughly beyond the narrative given to us by >white people. > >Integration was the white establishment's idea. > >For some reason, we still view it as some stride for Black >people. > >The white establishment simply replaces outdated white >supremacist models. For instance... >All we wanted was buses for our children to get to school, >which showed that "separate but equal" (plessy v ferguson) was >a lie. They refused to give us buses and make our schools >equal but were cool with offering us integration. The theory >of integration is white supremacist in itself, as if revolves >around the idea that Black people can only learn among white >people (which is obviously false since Black people were >self-taught in the 1800s and even taught white people, and >many of our greatest minds came from that segregated era) when >the only issue we had was no funding for our schools (children >walking 18 miles round-trip, having to gather their own >firewood, etc.) > >Thurgood Marshall didn't raise the issue of integration in the >federal district court of Summerton, South Carolina. It >wasn't even in his briefs. He pushed integration at the >suggestion of Judge Julius Waring. You can look into >Marshall's friendship with J. Edgar Hoover and hatred of >"militant" Black activists such as T.R.M. Howard who >criticized the FBI for their failure to properly investigate >the killings of George W. Lee and Emmett Till. >Kenneth Clark also found that Black children in integrated >schools were more likely to have lower self-esteem according >to his doll test. He presented evidence from where he tried >the test on 13 Black children in South Carolina which had >"incomplete segregation" at the time, and they preferred the >white doll. He knew this was unscientific, because he'd done >it in Massachusetts (integrated at the time) and they also >preferred the white doll. But he'd also done it in Arkansas >(segregated at the time), and those Black children preferred >the BLACK doll, yet he purposely left this out of the >evidence. White people have long understood that our presence >in a sea of them is the worst thing for us. > >The word integration isn't in the constitution. The only >place it appears in the law is in Anti-Trust Law. It deals >with mergers and one of the consequences of a merger is that >one of the parties loses identity (vertical integration). Now >let THAT sink it. >So-called civil rights also gave them access to our financial >market. It wasn't based on the 14th Ammendment, it was based >on the Commerce Clause. Think of the lynching of Black men >who tried to own businesses (Ida B. Wells' wake up call) and >the burning of Black Wall Street. >Calvin Coolidge said "the business of America is business." >Ergo, we took America a moral problem and got a business >solution which was detrimental to us. > >Shout out to Attorney Alton Maddox. He broke most of that >down a long time ago. > > > >
83. "You're clearly saying it's better than segregation." In response to Reply # 79
That would mean you're saying it was at least a stride. Even with your assertion that self- segregation is "no better" than forced segregation is an assumed understanding that segregation is inherently bad.
It's fine that we disagree, but what you're saying is really clear.
I'm curious though... If you don't feel it's a stride or a "total win", what do you think are the cons of integration? I laid out some extremely detrimental ones in my previous comment, but it would seem that you disagree with those if you feel that integration is best.
Also, must say that this comment saddens me...
>It's easy for a group of people to vote >against your best interest if they don't >look you in the eyes everyday.
The fact that we haven't understood white psychosis yet is just insane. Hundreds of years of them justifying killing us and we still think being around them will help them see our humanity.
86. "RE: You're clearly saying it's better than segregation." In response to Reply # 83
>That would mean you're saying it was >at least a stride.
Based on my conversations with my elders and education about that era over the past 40 years i've been on earth...yes, how could I or anyone else say it was NOT a stride with a straight face???
>Even with your assertion that self- >segregation is "no better" than forced >segregation is an assumed understanding >that segregation is inherently bad.
Yes.
>It's fine that we disagree, but what you're >saying is really clear.
There are nuances that are lost, and assumptions made by the continued push to sum up my statements as cut and dry as you all are attempting to do.
>I'm curious though... >If you don't feel it's a stride or a "total win", >what do you think are the cons of integration? >I laid out some extremely detrimental ones >in my previous comment, but it would seem >that you disagree with those if you feel >that integration is best.
I don't disagree with all of the cons you listed at all. I do think that laying out those cons without consciously acknowledging the very real pro's of it; as well as the cons that existed with the era of segregation is not taking an honest and educated approach to this dialogue.
>Also, must say that this comment saddens me... > >>It's easy for a group of people to vote >>against your best interest if they don't >>look you in the eyes everyday. > >The fact that we haven't understood white >psychosis yet is just insane. Hundreds of >years of them justifying killing us and we >still think being around them will help them >see our humanity.
That statement isn't about humanity or getting them to see our humanity. We're talking about civic participation here are we not? If there's no representative in a given civic group that's actively lobbying for the interest of those he/she is representing, then there is a far greater chance that things will be brought to the table and passed that are not in our best interest. The reality is that there will always be a minority existing in any given district. Do those folks not deserve advocacy? Why is the assumption that they are any less important to the cause or the struggle because they don't physically live within a community of people that look like them?
All this talk about creating a segregated community seems to ignore the fact that said community would still have to exist and move within the existing infrastructure and legal system of the USA. There's simply no way around that. So you say "Well, who says it has to be in the continental USA??" well the answer to THAT is tell me where this ideal community could realistically and feasibly locate itself with zero outside influence or dependence on any other entity?
I realize my statements are all over the place and touching on different things here....blame on me double tasking and only half in the dialogue.
53. "My original question wasn't really about physical location. " In response to Reply # 0
This is a question about drawing congressional lines and gerrymandering and that really doesn't require the black people to all be phyisically located together.
Some of the black gerrymandered districts are barely contigious and don't represent natural black neighborhoods.
You can also split up the votes in a natural black community in such a way that the votes fall in other districts like the black circle in this photo
Not to stop the conversation from going in ways I didn't intend. That's a whole nother conversation worth having, but also want folks to consider and finish there thought on my original question.
>Let's say a state has five congressional districts and the >population of the state is 20% black. You can draw >congressional district lines all sorts of ways but the choice >comes down to either: > >1. Create one all black district and leaving the other four >districts without black voters; or > >2. Spread out the black votes so each district is 20% black. > > > >If you had to pick one of the two which one would you choose >and explain your answer.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
66. "RE: 1 black district is still better IMO " In response to Reply # 65
But isn't it hurting black people who vote majority blue right now?
I posted but no one seemed to read how gerrymandering minority majority districts is taking away power in states from those groups right now..
Double 0 DJ/Producer/Artist Producer in Kidz In The Hall ------------------------------------------- twitter: @godouble0 IG: @godouble0 www.thinklikearapper.com
Atillah Moor Member since Sep 05th 2013 13825 posts
Wed Jun-28-17 10:35 PM
76. "the decisions white people make will always be in their favor " In response to Reply # 66 Wed Jun-28-17 10:46 PM by Atillah Moor
so even if the the districts are more spread out it will still be in such a way that white people will be able to control it more so than be controlled by it
Concentrated areas even if siloed have more political power to change that type of scenario as opposed to being dispersed and having less say in the process
73. "Recognize though that your framing is racist." In response to Reply # 69
that is, you rob black people of all their agency when you frame it as an "attempt to divide black communities into smaller groups".
I think the first question would be, well who is behind the effort?
Spreading the black vote among several districts could equally be framed as a strategic attempt by black people to difuse their their influence to reach the most amount people possible.
It all depends on who is the driving force behind it.
A very good argument is being made now that the all black districts we see now were a results of white legislatures working to silo black votes to make them the most ineffective.
If black peole made the strategic decision to spread their influence, would you still consider it an "attempt to divide black communities into smaller groups"?
E: I'm mistrustful of any attempt to divide black communities into smaller groups
>Historically, that coincides with exploitation of some sort.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79574 posts
Fri Jun-30-17 09:41 AM
89. "Racist? How the fuck did you come to this come conclusion?" In response to Reply # 73
He said he was mistrustful and you ran with it.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
94. "Option 2 is best as long as the distribution isn't done strategically..." In response to Reply # 0
Unfortunately, it IS done strategically. Voters aren't randomly allocated to districts. Lines are cut to where just the right amount of a certain type of voter is put into each district to ensure victory for the party.
Our government relies on coalitions. What we call Democrats and Republicans are really just individuals with varied interests who find common cause among one or more of those interests, even if they are indifferent or even disagree with the rest of the party's platform. No one interest group can get power alone.
If we assume all black folks have the same interests and everyone else has varying interests, then option 1 will always leave black voters out in the cold. They would never have any representative power (always just 1 out of 5).
Option 2 would allow blacks to ally with other voters to at least get some of what they want. In order to get elected, a representative would need to cater to the black voters.
So again, assuming the distribution of black voters into districts is random and not determined strategically, then Option 2 would be best.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
(8 votes)
(16 votes)
