Category Archives: WELFARE

Minneapolis riots — Another leftist city reaps what it sowed

The riots in Minneapolis were inevitable for Leftist policies against racism and income inequality lead to racism, income inequality, and police brutality.

Tom Wolfe famously said, “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.” Aside from being as true now as it was the day he spoke those words, a variant applies to America as well: “The dark night of racism and income inequality is always descending in America’s conservative heartland and yet lands only in its Democrat-run cities.”

This should not surprise anybody. Democrat policies, even as they ostensibly “fight” racism and income inequality, create the perfect environment for those vices to grow and eventually smother the host.

Income inequality inevitably occurs when the government perverts the marketplace. Humans are marvelously adaptable creatures. We will follow wherever the incentives lead. In leftist cities, the incentives are broken. The government puts its thumb on the scale all over the place.

As just one example, think of rent control, which leftists argue is necessary to ensure that poor people can afford rent. Additionally, what’s paired with rent control is a set of laws that makes it almost impossible for a landlord to evict non-rent paying tenants.

What these two sets of law do is shrink rental stock. If you have rent control and it’s impossible to evict deadbeat tenants, there’s no profit and therefore no incentive for people to invest in rental property. In addition, for those who have braved the rental market, landlords are loath to maintain it at anything other than a bare minimum of livability. This is why leftist cities end up with housing for the wealthy and slums (see, e.g., San Francisco). The process has been slower in Minneapolis, which has more acreage than San Francisco but rest assured, even Minneapolis will get there.

“Under-classism,” which is where so much racism incubates, will invariably occur when you have a government that incentives the underclass. Welfare is one example. I believe in taking care of the widows and orphans, by which I mean people who are truly unable to care for themselves. However, our welfare system, beginning in the 1960s, incentivized single-motherhood. Indeed, it was set up to ensure, not only that women jettisoned husbands, who decreased their welfare payments but to make it profitable to have more children.

Back in the 1970s, even 60 Minutes noticed a problem with this, for I distinctly remember an episode that spoke about the way New Jersey’s welfare system was set up to make having illegitimate babies economically sensible for young women, with more babies bringing in significantly more money. As well all know, single motherhood is the most certain path to generational poverty. That episode, by the way, was one of the first stepping stones in my long, slow journey across the Rubicon from Democrat to conservative.

Leftist cities also have hosts of regulations, all with an eye to making things “more fair” for the poor and for minorities. However, by making business too expensive and difficult, the laws just drive businesses out. I’ve written before about the way in which the legal problems associated with firing minority employees mean that employers leave the marketplace, creating unemployment and a lower tax base.

In addition, those laws tell minorities, who are not incompetent but are, instead, completely rational, know that they don’t have to work as hard to keep a job. The law, therefore, degrades them, for the offer employers their worst conduct not their best. “Best,” after all, takes energy, and conservation of energy is one of the universe’s most honored controlling principles.

Another way leftist cities creating an underclass is the misguided sympathy that sees them allowing street crimes and underwriting drug use. Last year, Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s Marxist District Attorney, announced that he would no longer prosecute any lifestyle crimes, making the city one giant cesspool. Not only does this draw in the criminals and addicts, but it also drives out the tax base. People with jobs and families can no longer stay in that kind of environment.

One thing that happens when you’ve created this kind of landscape is that the police degrade. Instead of having true community policing, where the police and the law-abiding in the community have a partnership aimed at keeping the environment healthy, you end up with police facing off against the functional equivalent of zombies, whether gangbangers or insane druggies.

It’s the rare police officer dealing with this day after day who can hang onto humanity and decency. Eventually and inevitably, police stop seeing the people on the other side of the thin blue line as fellow humans. Instead, because government policies induce many to act like animals, the police fall into the error and evil of treating them that way.

This problem (i.e., police dehumanizing the citizens they’re supposed to protect) gets worse as good cops leave the police departments in decayed cities. Two things happen, then. First, the only ones left are the bad cops. Second, applicant quality declines, leaving the police departments stuck hiring people who shouldn’t be holding badges and guns. (I urge you to read the book I reviewed in this post, for it tells about the horrible damage a bad police department can do.)

When you have a large enough underclass, and you light the spark, suddenly you have Minneapolis. This poster sums it up:

Minneapolis riots v MLK civil rights protests

Martin Luther King led law-abiding citizens who dreamed of being middle-class people in a functional society. Black Lives Matters draws its strength from the mob. It has no intention of encouraging its followers into civilized behavior. It needs anger, chaos, and terror to achieve its power.

Part of me looks at what’s happening in Minneapolis and thinks, “That’s so awful. It’s a very nice Midwestern city and I really hate seeing random destruction.” The other part of me looks at what’s happening and thinks, “For decades, you’ve been pursuing hard-left policies that create greater economic inequalities and that highlight racial divides, all while you’ve been smugly telling conservatives that they’re evil for not doing the same as you. All you did, though, was worsen those problems. As you sow, so shall you reap. In other words, it couldn’t happen to a more smug group of leftists.”

Speaking of this karmic leftist wheel, which sees Democrat-run communities smugly enact policies that create greater poverty and more racism, lets talk about the mobs targeting Target. I’m sorry to see Target stores looted because I value private property and a well-ordered world.

Still, there is something karmic about it happening to Target of all companies. After all, Target, which is headquartered in Minneapolis, is one of America’s most dutiful virtue-signaling corporations. Who can forget its decision to open women’s restrooms to all genders? Likewise, if you go to a Target in June, you’re buried in LGBTQ rainbow iconography. The leftist virtue-signaling is smothering.

Of course, the sad thing is that these leftists will not learn from this failure. Instead, like the classic insane person, they’ll keep doing the same thing, all the while hoping for a different outcome. Indeed, if history is a guide, they’ll double down on their bad policies.

Immigration, character, welfare, and economic destiny

America’s economic growth will benefit from an immigration policy that sees people with skills come to work, not to latch onto America’s welfare benefits.

A few decades ago, when I was getting my history major at Cal, something very rare and special happened: I had a brilliant professor. Every lecture he gave was fascinating, so much so that, while I’ve forgotten most of what my other teachers told me and that I memorized for just long enough to pass the exams, I remember an amazing amount of what Professor Rothblatt had to say.

One of the things that especially stuck in my mind over the years was how he explained the fact that the British industrial revolution petered out (even before WWI and the Great Depression sank their talons into Britain), while the American industrial revolution kept going and going and going, rather like the Energizer Bunny.* According to Professor Rothblatt, the problem was the English class system. It wasn’t that the government used the class system to limit people’s economic opportunities. It was that the workers themselves felt constrained by the class system. It wasn’t a glass ceiling for them; it was a cast iron ceiling.

In many industries, once the abuses and upheavals of the first half of the 19th century wound down, especially in the late Victorian era when classic liberals in government started instituting some basic workplace protections, working people were able to make a decent enough life for themselves. Their definition of a “decent life,” though, was limited by class mobility. Within the confines of their working class neighborhood, their decent life meant that they could have enough food on the table, money for Sunday clothes in addition to work clothes, a snug home, etc.

What they could not do with earning and saving money, or with innovating and creating new ways of doing old work or creating new products altogether, was move into the next class. They could not move to better communities or get into better schools. There were, of course, exceptions as there are to every rule, but for the vast mass of working class Brits, Henry Higgins, channeling Alan J. Lerner, summed it up: “An Englishman’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks, he makes some other Englishman despise him.” Thus, there was no benefit to be had from working longer, harder, or more creatively. In real estate terms, the working class person who made this extra effort would be in the unenviable position of having the fanciest house in the neighborhood — he could never get a return on his investment.

In America, at least before the modern era of college-/university-educated elitists dawned, there was a tremendous amount of social mobility. People were applauded for leaving their class of origin, not denigrated for doing so. With Americans, whether native-born or immigrant, always believing that there was room at the top, they were willing to spend the time and energy to work harder and to innovate. This is why in America, once the brutalities of the early industrial revolution were tamed, that same revolution, rather than reaching a stopping point, was an endless springboard for rising classes of workers, allowing the disciplined, the diligent, and the creative to move up the economic scale.

Put simply, British culture contributed significantly to its industrial slowdown.

Culture can matter economically in America too. As I alluded to a few paragraphs ago, and as Kurt Schlichter develops at some length in his marvelous Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy, America is developing a very strong class system at the upper end thanks to our university caste. These are people who believe that their Womyns, Queer, and Race Study degrees entitle them to impose Marxism, both cultural and economic, across America. These grads are the virus that infect America’s business sector with the “wokeness” that took over America’s college campuses as they take over management positions. Once embedded in corporate America (or, even worse, in government bureaucracies), these “woke” grads secrete their ideological toxins into the workplace. They depress economic growth because their big government ideology is antithetical to a dynamic marketplace.

We see too that culture matters in the African-American community. When I see charts showing that African-Americans consistently score lower on SAT tests, I do not think, “Oh, black people aren’t as smart as others are.” Instead, I think, “Darn it! I wish they could get their cultural ducks in a row.” I wish that they would work hard in school, get a job, get married, and have children — in that order — and that they would then encourage their children to work hard in school. These values are how generations of Jews and Asians arrived in this country dirt poor and not even speaking the language, only to see their children move up and up the economic ladder, leaving the ghettos for the suburbs. The problem isn’t race; it’s culture.

We have other downscale culture problems in America. As I blogged about at length in the context of the Obamacare debate, there’s also a culture of poor people who have no desire whatsoever for economic mobility. I have a friend who is part of this culture, so I’ve seen this play out first hand.

When Obamacare came along, while my friend did take advantage of it because she has middle class values about preventive medicine and was indeed very grateful for low-cost, subsidized insurance, many of her friends were deeply offended that they would be forced to buy insurance. This was not because they were libertarians who objected to the government forcing them to make a purchase in the marketplace. It was because, no matter how heavily subsidized their Obamacare, they would still have to pay something every month. They preferred their existing system, which had no preventive care, but had them going to the ER for everything from colds to broken bones to appendicitis. That treatment was subsidized 100%, which was a better deal to them than paying $50 a month for insurance.

I wrote then that the Obamacare architects were operating on the assumption that everyone in America wants a middle class lifestyle, with a nice home, a new car every six years, college for the children, and insurance that covers not just emergencies but childhood vaccinations, colds, migraines, arthritis treatments, etc. In my friend’s circle, though, people had different goals: welfare checks, food stamps, free care at the ER, access to their recreational drugs of choice (and beer), and to be left alone. There was no part in their ethos that included working for any of the benefits they received courtesy of taxpayers. These people are the takers and they feel very, very entitled — especially because they are willing to have a very low standard of living in exchange for those benefits.

And then there are the immigrants. As Ben Shapiro said on his Friday podcast, he supports Trump’s plan to move immigration to a standard that looks at what the immigrant can do for America, rather than what America can do for the immigrant. The reason he does is because we live in a welfare state. Before the welfare state, Shapiro noted, people who came to America were (at least in theory) committed to working their way up the economic ladder. They were strivers, innovators, and risk-takers. Now, though, with the welfare state, people come here expecting to get better welfare than in their home countries.

Take Muslims, for example. In 2015, Jeff Sessions’ office prepared a chart showing how dependent “Middle Eastern” (i.e., Muslim) refugees are on welfare in America:

Muslim Refugees Welfare

That’s not just the case in America. Muslims take disproportionate advantage of welfare in whatever First World country they land.  Not all are like that, of course. I wrote last year about the absolutely delightful Afghani couple I met. When they finally immigrated (legally) to Canada, Canada extended them one year of benefits, plus loans. They learned the language, got skills, worked like crazy, paid back the loans, and now they and their children are thriving. However, this same couple looks at the latest batch of Syrian Muslim immigrants to Canada and is disgusted: the newbies are takers and very aggressive takers at that.

Overall, in a 2015 study, 51% of immigrant households got some welfare, compared to 30% of American households. (I suggest following the link I just provided; the data are fascinating.)

I’m not saying that legal immigrants to America shouldn’t receive some assistance, at least while they are adjusting to living in a new country.  That Afghani couple was a good example of people being given a hand up and then rocketing off on their own.

Nevertheless, it’s worth pointing out that immigrants of late come here expecting social services. Muslim immigrants especially come from a mindset that says that they are entitled to jizya — a subsidy from non-believers. In other words, too many modern immigrants come to America to take, not to work and create.

All of which is to wrap around to my original point, which is that, when it comes to whether our country’s economic does well, the debate shouldn’t just be about free market versus managed economies. Instead, culture matters too.

In England, it mattered that people knew that they could never rise above their class.

In America, it matters that too many African-Americans organize their lives in ways that are antithetical to economic success. It matters that native-born Americans on welfare are completely happy to live at the very bottom echelons of society, contributing nothing, provided that they don’t have to work. And it matters very much in immigration, when we open our doors to people, both legal (chain migration and lotteries) and illegal, who come here determined to take advantage of America’s generous welfare programs without feeling any corollary obligation to contribute their energy and innovation to the American economy.

* Obviously, any mistakes I make here are mine alone, whether because I misunderstood the good professor or because the passage of time has warped my memory about what he said.

Image credit: A Fool and His Money, by David Goehring. Creative Commons; some rights reserved.

The post Immigration, character, welfare, and economic destiny appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 4/10/19 — the flyover country edition

This discursive Bookworm Beat wanders from American black culture, to evil Leftists, to the wonders of Wal-Mart versus the horrors of socialized medicine.

Everything Leftists hate about America. I’ve been spending some time of late in small town America — in Eastern Tennessee to be specific. Frankly, I can see why coastal blue staters hate this part of America. There are so many things here that give offense: good suburban infrastructure, happy people, friendly interactions between the races, staggeringly beautiful nature with lots of open space, Wal-Marts, lawns that homeowners tend every weekend, and lots of pro-Trump and pro-Second Amendment bumper stickers on cars. This kind of well-managed, all-American environment is enough to give any Leftist chronic heartburn and a desire to destroy.

Speaking of those lawns, even though today is not a weekend day, I worked with a friend to get rid of ivy that had overtaken a corner of his property.

Ivy looks so pretty, doesn’t it? It’s not. There’s nothing pretty about it. It’s like Kudzu’s younger brother.

I filled seven big black garbage bags with the stuff and only cleared out 2/3 of it. I am exhausted. I also feel pretty darn self-righteous, though, which helps offset some of the fatigue.

But enough about living the good life in flyover country America. Let me get down to the brass tacks of today’s stories.

For American blacks, the problem isn’t race, it’s culture; more specifically, welfare culture. I’m going to assume that all of you saw Candace Owen’s testimony before a Democrat-run House Committee anxious to find a white nationalism problem where none exists. Owens was obviously nervous, but she was also rocking and rolling, talking about pathologies within the African American community that have nothing to do with white nationalism.

No wonder that the utterly vile Ted Lieu tried to smear Owens as a Hitler lover while the brain dead (Go)Nadler wrongly chastised her for calling Lieu stupid. The Democrats should be deeply embarrassed that these two moronic, immoral people represent them.

Shame, though, isn’t part of a Democrat lexicon unless the Democrat is trying to shame someone else. In fact, what the Leftist media did to try to offset the damage that Owens imposed on the Leftist brand was to repeat Lieu’s smear that a black woman is a Hitler lover. Even worse, those Democrats I follow on Facebook, rather than asking, as Owens did, “How dumb do you think we are?” gleefully passed on those same offensive and nonsensical smears.

A friend of mine keeps saying, “I don’t see any way that we’re going to avoid a Second Civil War.” I always come back at him saying, “We’re already in the Second Civil War. There just haven’t been any shots fired; only hats attacked.” (One of the more insane attacks involved a white woman attacking a Hispanic woman for being a racist because the Hispanic woman were a MAGA hat. As (Go)Nadler demonstrated, white Leftists aren’t even pretending to use their brains anymore.)

What I want to address here briefly is Candace’s point about self-inflicted pathologies within the black community. She’s right, of course, as I’ve blogged here before.

I’ll just add two things. First, while those pathologies were present in black communities through the early 1960s thanks to systemic racial discrimination in the form of slavery, Jim Crow in the South, and open racism in the North, the reality is that by the early 1960s, blacks were making huge social and economic gains by following the universal rules for success in a free market economy: education, job, marriage, children, in that order.

What brought all this to a screeching halt was Johnson’s “Great Society,” which was intended, as Johnson himself admitted to a friend, to keep “n*****s voting for Democratic for 200 years.”  (Some say this quotation is apocryphal, but it’s certainly held up to reality for almost 60 years.) Suddenly, education, jobs, and marriages went out the window. All that remained was children: half of which have been aborted and, of those not aborted, over of 70% of whom have been raised in poverty-stricken homes with single mothers getting some form of welfare.

This ongoing African-American tragedy has nothing to do with skin color and nothing to do with America’s history of either slavery or Jim Crow. Instead, it has everything to do with culture — a culture brought down thanks to what was effectively a pact with the Devil, with the Devil in this case being a welfare state that made education, men, work, and nuclear families redundant and, indeed, offensive. No wonder that, as blacks are finally recognizing the soul-stealing agreement the Left foisted on them, the Democrats are trying to distract them by calling a black woman . . . Hitler.

Looked at in this way, the reparations that all of the Democrat party candidate for president insist must be imposed on a generation of Americans who had nothing to do with slavery is just a reaffirmation of the original welfare contract with the Devil. Reparations won’t make things better. Instead, they will buy another 60 years of Democrat votes built on the ruined bodies and souls of American blacks.

The second thing I’ll add is a point that Scott Adams made, and he’s the first I’ve heard make it: Regarding reparations, he says that someone is going to ask, if we’re giving reparations, by what standard should we measure black lives in America, at least economically? Do we measure them against all whites? Inner city whites? Appalachian whites? Vietnamese who came here 40 years ago with nothing and now are middle class?

Or — and this is the kicker — do we ask how these blacks would be doing if they hadn’t been brought to America in the first place? The answer, of course, is not well. No matter how badly blacks are doing in America, they’re doing worse in Africa.

I’ll offer two links to support that last statement. The first is Kim du Toit’s post saying Let Africa Sink. The second is Keith Richburg’s masterpiece, Out of America : A Black Man Confronts Africa, in which he explains how a stint in Africa while working for the Washington Post made him grateful that his long-ago ancestors had suffered the horrors of being transported to and enslaved in America.

Some of today’s most storied Democrats are either very stupid or very evil. When it comes to the openly anti-Semitic, anti-American Ilhan Omar, I’m inclined to go with the latter choice, although I won’t deny her a strong dollop of the former. I don’t think she’s the brightest bulb on the block, but she has down pat the rap of victimhood, nicely wrapped around her adherence to sharia.

Anyway, the Democrat Omar tale today is a story told in three tweets.

Tweet 1 came when Dan Crenshaw heard how Omar described 9/11:

Tweet 2 is Omar’s response, which does not address the substance of Rep. Crenshaw’s tweet. Instead, she immediately heads straight to victimhood. No surprise there, because it’s worked so well for her up until now:

Tweet 3 explains why I said “up until now.” Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, won’t let her get away with her victimhood ploy. No doesn’t grovel. Instead, he just calls her out on her mindless victimhood calumnies:

I like the cut of Rep. Crenshaw’s jib.

Be sure to whip this out when a Leftist praises socialized medicine. One of my conservative Facebook friend is begging everyone to spread this link far and wide. I’m doing my best right here:

The fraying edges of universal health care : Britain’s version of ‘Medicare for All,’ delivers rationing and even blindness

If you’re wondering what Democrats have in mind when they tout “Medicare For All,” look no further than England. There are more reports of the U.K.’s National Health System’s collapse, this time featuring horror stories of rationing care for the elderly. Doctors are now sounding alarms bells that seniors with cataracts are going blind as they wait for surgical approval.

The Guardian reported, “Patients who are losing their sight are being forced to wait for months before having eye cataracts removed because of NHS cost-cutting. … The NHShas imposed restrictions on patients’ access to cataract surgery in more than half of England. … The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) condemned the rationing as shocking. It warned that not treating people with cloudy vision risks them falling and breaking bones, thus costing the NHS more.”

Last year, The New York Times reported some people in England were waiting for 12 hours to be seen in emergency rooms.

There’s more in the article, much, much more. Once again, let me spell it out: Europe’s post-WWII fling with socialism, or at least its decision to socialize its welfare services, worked for one reason and one reason only: America paid for it. For 70 years, we absorbed most of Europe’s military costs. We worked so that they got free cradle to grave care.

In the unwinding of the world since the Soviet Union’s collapse, Europe’s had to pay for its own socialized welfare system, and it’s had to do that at the same time that its citizens decided once and for all that having children is time-consuming, exhausting, and expensive, so why bother? Without American money and without a rising class of young people to foot the bill for old people’s care . . . older Europeans are in deep doo-doo.

Remember: this is what the Democrats want for you.

The free market is always the best answer. Turn your eyes away from Europe and look at the 1 gig flash drive you got for free at a trade show or a craft fair. When those things first came on the market around the year 2000, you paid several hundred dollars for a 512 MB flash drive. Capitalism drove prices down. People finding needs and filling them, and building better mousetraps is the best way to deliver the greatest amount and quality of services and products to the largest number of people.

Don’t believe me? Go to Wal-Mart. If you’re a Lefty, stop sneering at Wal-Mart’s shoppers and start looking at the dazzling array of products, all at affordable prices. Maybe Wal-Mart shoppers aren’t dressed as expensively as the Kardashians (although most look a darn sight classier), but at Wal-Mart, these shoppers have something akin to the same buying power as the Kardashians do when they’re wasting their money on weird clothes sold on Paris catwalks.

My brain function feels as if it’s entangled with ivy. I’d better stop. Your comments are always welcome.

The post Bookworm Beat 4/10/19 — the flyover country edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

That time when Democrats were responsible for low Black unemployment

Trump boasted in his Grand Rapids speech that his policies were responsible for historically low Black unemployment. Dems shouldn’t take that lying down.

Low Black Unemployment under Democrats

Never forget which American political party was the slavery party.

And don’t forget either that it was the Democrats who, ignoring the great Frederick Douglass’s insistence that America could serve Blacks best by allowing them to thrive unhindered,* instead foisted government dependency on them beginning in the 1930s, with an extra dose of the hard stuff in the 1960s. After all, it was Democrat President Lyndon Johnson who, when speaking to two like-minded politicians, boasted that his Great Society legislation would ensure that “I’ll have those n*****rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Looking at these trends in Black employment — that is, almost full employment through slavery; unemployment through government dependency; and almost full employment through the free market — American Blacks must decide what system served them best, both at an individual level and as a community. If they conclude that being independent, self-sufficient, and gainfully employed is a good thing, it’s time for them to leave the Democrat plantation and, as free men and women, vote for Trump and the Republicans in 2020.
*Here’s what Douglass wrote in 1862 when people were worried that society would be overrun by indigent Blacks were slavery to end:

These objections are often urged with a show of sincere solicitude for the welfare of the slaves themselves. It is said, what will you do with them? they can’t take care of themselves; they would all come to the North; they would not work; they would become a burden upon the State, and a blot upon society; they’d cut their masters’ throats; they would cheapen labor, and crowd out the poor white laborers from employment; their former masters would not employ them, and they would necessarily become vagrants, paupers and criminals, over-running all our alms houses, jails and prisons. The laboring classes among the whites would come in bitter conflict with them in all the avenues of labor, and regarding them as occupying places and filling propositions which should be occupied and filled by white men; a fierce war of races would be the inevitable consequence, and the black race would, of course, (being the weaker,) be exterminate. In view of this frightful, though happily somewhat contradictory picture, the question is asked, and pressed with a great show of earnestness at this momentous crisis of our nation’s history, What shall be done with the four million slaves if they are emancipated?

This question has been answered, and can be answered in many ways. Primarily, it is a question less for man than for God — less for human intellect than for the laws of nature to solve. It assumes that nature has erred; that the law of liberty is a mistake; that freedom, though a natural want of human soul, can only be enjoyed at the expense of human welfare, and that men are better off in slavery than they would or could be in freedom; that slavery is the natural order of human relations, and that liberty is an experiment. What shall be done with them?

Our answer is, do nothing with them; mind your business, and let them mind theirs. Your doing with them is their greatest misfortune. They have been undone by your doings, and all they now ask, and really have need of at your hands, is just to let them alone. They suffer by ever interference, and succeed best by being let alone.


As colored men, we only ask to be allowed to do with ourselves, subject only to the same great laws for the welfare of human society which apply to other men, Jews, Gentiles, Barbarian, Sythian. Let us stand upon our own legs, work with our own hands, and eat bread in the sweat of our own brows. When you, our white fellow-countrymen, have attempted to do anyting for us, it has generally been to deprive us of some right, power or privilege which you yourself would die before you would submit to have taken from you. When the planters of the West Indies used to attempt to puzzle the pure-minded Wilberforce with the question, How shall we get rid of slavery? his simple answer was, “quit stealing.” In like manner, we answer those who are perpetually puzzling their brains with questions as to what shall be done with the Negro, “let him alone and mind your own business.” If you see him plowing in the open field, leveling the forest, at work with the spade, a rake a hoe, a pick-axe, or a bill — let him alone; he has a right to work. If you see him on his way to school, with spelling book, geography and arithmetic in his hands — let him alone. Don’t shut the door in his face, nor bolt your gates against him; he has a right to learn — let him alone. Don’t pass laws to degrade him. If he has a ballot in his hand, and is on his way to the ballot-box to deposit his vote for the man whom he think will most justly and wisely administer the Government which has the power of life and death over him, as well as others — let him alone; his right of choice as much deserves respect and protection as your own. If you see him on his way to the church, exercising religious liberty in accordance with this or that religious persuasion — let him alone. –Don’t meddle with him, nor trouble yourselves with any questions as to what shall be done with him.

The post That time when Democrats were responsible for low Black unemployment appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.