City of Oakland Mayor is branded racist for giving families of color $500 a month if they earn under $59,000 with no rules on how they spend it - but offering poor white families nothing

First topic message reminder :

A program to give $500 monthly checks to low-income families of color in Oakland, California, has been criticized for explicitly excluding the 10,000 white residents living in poverty in the city.

The lottery system, funded by private philanthropists, will see the no-strings-attached checks go to households with an annual income of less than $59,000 if they have at least one child. The other half of the $500 checks will go to those earning under $30,000.

According to data from an Oakland Equity Indicators Report, cited by officials to justify favoring people of color, white households earn about three times that of African-American ones.

The same report states around 8 per cent of the city's white residents, approximately 10,000 people, live in poverty.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9399137/Oakland-California-exclude-white-families-living-poverty-500-month-checks.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus

“I don’t get the money because I’m the wrong colour.”

It’s racist.

Make me wrong.

eddie wrote:“I don’t get the money because I’m the wrong colour.”

It’s racist.

Make me wrong.

it used to be ...and still is in many cases I don’t get the money because I’m black and that was racist
there is a difference between racism and righting a wrong imo or trying however clumsily to balance a scale

eddie wrote:“I don’t get the money because I’m the wrong colour.”

It’s racist.

Make me wrong.

It's private money. None of your business.

Korben wrote:

eddie wrote:“I don’t get the money because I’m the wrong colour.”

It’s racist.

Make me wrong.

it used to be ...and still is in many cases I don’t get the money because I’m black and that was racist
there is a difference between racism and righting a wrong imo or trying however clumsily to balance a scale

Oh I see! It was wrong when it was racist against black people but now it’s right because it’s racist against another colour?

So to right a wrong we have to still be wrong.

Fucking odd way of doing things.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:“I don’t get the money because I’m the wrong colour.”

It’s racist.

Make me wrong.

It's private money.  None of your business.

Comment had nothing to do with what I said
Irrelevant.

eddie wrote:

Korben wrote:
it used to be ...and still is in many cases I don’t get the money because I’m black and that was racist
there is a difference between racism and righting a wrong imo or trying however clumsily to balance a scale

Oh I see! It was wrong when it was racist against black people but now it’s right because it’s racist against another colour?

So to right a wrong we have to still be wrong.

Fucking odd way of doing things.  

Woh steady eddie

you perhaps could look at it like this
switch colour for gender
Equal rights and wages for women who do the same job as a man or denying women promotions because they are women and might become pregnant or stipulating that if they do become pregnant they loose there job ect ect And all the other things that women face
would it be wrong to give woman a wage rise to the same level as a man while not giving the same wage rise to a man ?

would righting that wrong be a odd way of doing things

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's private money.  None of your business.

Comment had nothing to do with what I said
Irrelevant.

Not very clever of you, eds.  Have you not read the whole thread?  Have you not even read the article?  Did you miss the entire first page of this thread?

The money was from private philanthropists.  Under our current laws, one can do what one wants with his/her own money, and it's "none of your business".  People leave Wills to whomever they want, and its "none of your business".   You might even want to control your own money, and it's "no one else's business". These people, or concerns, in their private capacity, designated their money to go to benefit blacks.  "It's none of our business".

My comment had everything to do with the subject.  You weren't paying attention.

Ben Reilly wrote:Could someone explain how the mayor is involved in the distribution of privately-raised funds? Because that's the part I don't really get.

If the funds are from private donors they can be spent on anything legal, but in that case, it doesn't really make sense to me to have a government official involved in the distribution of the funds.

That's the entire crux of the problem. Private parties can discriminate based on race, the government can't.

Or at least shouldn't.

eddie wrote:

Korben wrote:
it used to be ...and still is in many cases I don’t get the money because I’m black and that was racist
there is a difference between racism and righting a wrong imo or trying however clumsily to balance a scale

Oh I see! It was wrong when it was racist against black people but now it’s right because it’s racist against another colour?

So to right a wrong we have to still be wrong.

Fucking odd way of doing things.  

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind eh?

Korben wrote:

eddie wrote:

Oh I see! It was wrong when it was racist against black people but now it’s right because it’s racist against another colour?

So to right a wrong we have to still be wrong.

Fucking odd way of doing things.  

Woh steady eddie

you perhaps could look at it like this
switch colour for gender
Equal rights and wages for women who do the same job as a man or denying women promotions because they are women and might become pregnant  or stipulating that if they do become pregnant they loose there job ect ect  And all the other things that women face
would it be wrong to give woman a wage rise to the same level as a man while not giving the same wage rise to a man ?

would righting that wrong be a odd way of doing things

This isn't about equality but excluding people based on race.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Could someone explain how the mayor is involved in the distribution of privately-raised funds? Because that's the part I don't really get.

If the funds are from private donors they can be spent on anything legal, but in that case, it doesn't really make sense to me to have a government official involved in the distribution of the funds.

That's the entire crux of the problem. Private parties can discriminate based on race, the government can't.  

Or at least shouldn't.  

What are you, a communist now? Who do you suggest should take private money from private pockets, the government? You get that law passed, and the government will own the Fortune 500 companies in two weeks.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Woh steady eddie

you perhaps could look at it like this
switch colour for gender
Equal rights and wages for women who do the same job as a man or denying women promotions because they are women and might become pregnant  or stipulating that if they do become pregnant they loose there job ect ect  And all the other things that women face
would it be wrong to give woman a wage rise to the same level as a man while not giving the same wage rise to a man ?

would righting that wrong be a odd way of doing things

This isn't about equality but excluding people based on race.  

Nonsense. The mandate is positive and additive, to benefit the welfare of blacks. No one is excluded.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Woh steady eddie

you perhaps could look at it like this
switch colour for gender
Equal rights and wages for women who do the same job as a man or denying women promotions because they are women and might become pregnant  or stipulating that if they do become pregnant they loose there job ect ect  And all the other things that women face
would it be wrong to give woman a wage rise to the same level as a man while not giving the same wage rise to a man ?

would righting that wrong be a odd way of doing things

This isn't about equality but excluding people based on race.  

And that's analogous to excluding people because of gender. fox news and fucker carlson is banging that drum on fox right now with women in the military trump and fox where are doing it with LGBTQ
just because its women who are being treated disproportionately doesn't change the underlying inequality or measures or in this case gifts to balance the scales

Handing money over to a selected ethnic group or colour is a nonstarter. It simply will not work, however well intentioned it is.  

I get where this mayor is coming from. But this is not the way. Maybe reparations for slavery is the way (but there will still be controversy and terrible logistical problems attached.)

Best if she just gives about half that cash to ALL the poorest families of ALL colours. $250 each.

JulesV wrote:Handing money over to a selected ethnic group or colour is a nonstarter. It simply will not work, however well intentioned it is.  

I get where this mayor is coming from. But this is not the way. Maybe reparations for slavery is the way (but there will still be controversy and terrible logistical problems attached.)

Best if she just gives about half that cash to ALL the poorest families of ALL colours. £250 each.

Well she cant the stipulation for the "gift"is black poor people she does not have any choice in the matter
this is not a case of a rising tide lifting all boats this is a case of people who have been bared from the dock being lifted

in fact white people demanding to be treated equally from a gift targeted at Black people is kind of ironic

Ah I went back to edit the currency in my post, korben. Cos I forgot to use dollars.

Yes. The town's black folk should forget about "fairness" . The world is not perfect, nor fair. Never was.

Best if they just accept whatever compromise is on the table & move on. Better than nothing.

JulesV wrote:Ah I went back to edit the currency in my post, korben. Cos I forgot to use dollars.

Yes. The town's black folk should forget about "fairness" . The world is not perfect, nor fair. Never was.

Best if they just accept whatever compromise is on the table & move on.  Better than nothing.

Thats ok i knew what you meant

ps its the white complainers who need to forget it ,the black poor people have no problem with it as far as i know and i suspect a lot of white "liberals " couldn't care less ether

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, they're not.  That's one of those Jim Crow Myths, perpetuated by southerners.

Jim Crow looks at all enrollment as a zero-sum game, taking all admissions as a base, and calculating all advantages to one race, as detractions to another race.  You see this in your reasoning: "...people not accepted that have higher scores than those not accepted are penalized."  

You don't get the concept of additive benefits.  Your reasoning is zero-sum.  You're just aggregating all students accepted, instead of setting aside the benefits, and then counting the advantages granted to one, to be disadvantages to the other.  Additive benefits are in addition to the aggregate, not to be detracted as penalties.

The study found that, without affirmative action, the acceptance rate for African-American candidates at elite colleges would be likely to fall by nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants probably would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent.

White applicants would have seen little change in this analysis. Their admission rate would rise slightly, to 24.3 percent, from 23.8 percent.

The big gains would be for Asian applicants. Their admission rate in a race-neutral system would go to 23.4 percent, from 17.6 percent. And their share of a class of admitted students would rise to 31.5 percent, from 23.7 percent."

So, it's working.  Hooray!  

Asians need to work a little harder if, in a completely merit-based system, they are falling behind.  No one is talking any slots away from them.  Race is not a detriment in college entrance decisions.

Ben Reilly wrote:Could someone explain how the mayor is involved in the distribution of privately-raised funds? Because that's the part I don't really get.

If the funds are from private donors they can be spent on anything legal, but in that case, it doesn't really make sense to me to have a government official involved in the distribution of the funds.

That's what I was looking for, too.  The article doesn't say, but rather shifts the subject to demographics.  It sounds like someone exercised a 'Power of Appointment' in a Will or a Trust (since it’s private money), and appointed the City or one of its departments to administer the funds.  But it would take some artful drafting to use race-based distinctions in defining the beneficiary pool.  It was the first question that occurred to me as a lawyer, and I never got an answer.

Alternatively, this story is all abuzz in RW circles.  I wouldn't put it past RW media to simply make this part up.  It might well be that the program is administered entirely within a private estate or trust, and it only mentions the City of Oakland boundaries in order to define the beneficiary pool. Republicans are good at framing appearances, and backing off only when called on it.

Korben wrote:

JulesV wrote:Handing money over to a selected ethnic group or colour is a nonstarter. It simply will not work, however well intentioned it is.  

I get where this mayor is coming from. But this is not the way. Maybe reparations for slavery is the way (but there will still be controversy and terrible logistical problems attached.)

Best if she just gives about half that cash to ALL the poorest families of ALL colours. £250 each.

Well she cant the stipulation for the "gift"is black poor people she does not have any choice in the matter
this is not a case of a rising tide lifting all boats this is a case of people who have been bared from the dock being lifted

in fact white people demanding to be treated equally from a gift targeted at Black people  is kind of ironic

I see.
Well obviously a different approach is needed as it's turned into a diplomatic problem.

The mayor should market this as a drive to ensure there is a minimum wage in the county. A sort of safety net.
A Venn diagram will most likely show that while there are poor people of all colours, the absolute poorest at the bottom of the ladder are the black folks anyway. So just give the money to that particular group, without mentioning the sensitive issue of colour.

RESULT!!

JulesV wrote:

Korben wrote:
Well she cant the stipulation for the "gift"is black poor people she does not have any choice in the matter
this is not a case of a rising tide lifting all boats this is a case of people who have been bared from the dock being lifted

in fact white people demanding to be treated equally from a gift targeted at Black people  is kind of ironic

I see.
Well obviously a different approach is needed as it's turned into a diplomatic problem.

The mayor should market this as a drive to ensure there is a minimum wage in the county. A sort of safety net.
A Venn diagram will most likely show that while there are poor people of all colours, the absolute poorest at the bottom of the ladder are the black folks anyway. So just give the money to that particular group, without mentioning the sensitive issue of colour.

RESULT!!

California has a minimum wage.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

This isn't about equality but excluding people based on race.  

And that's analogous to excluding people because of gender. fox news and fucker carlson is banging that drum on fox right now with women in the military trump and fox where are doing it with LGBTQ
just because its women who are being treated disproportionately doesn't change the underlying inequality or measures or in this case gifts to balance the scales

Are any of those part of a government program?

I think we have established that private citizens can do as they like with their money and resources.

The government can't. It's supposed to treat citizens equally.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

This isn't about equality but excluding people based on race.  

Nonsense.  The mandate is positive and additive, to benefit the welfare of blacks.  No one is excluded.

No one except those excluded based on race.

The article is poorly written, and doesn't directly address the race question:

Daily Mail wrote:The group behind the scheme, Oakland Resilient Families [apparently this is the private institution], said the idea for race-based payments began in 2020 when Mayor Schaaf pledged to bring a guaranteed income pilot to Oakland.

It states she was inspired in part by Stockton, California, which in 2019 started giving some residents earning under $46,000 per year a monthly check of $500.

Stockton's plan, launched under previous Mayor Michael Stubbs, has been widely praised as bringing greater economic prosperity to the city, and identified as a potential blueprint for a Federal universal basic of income.

Oakland Resilient Families, said it planned to steer half of the monthly checks towards black, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) in East Oakland.

So the plan is basically a guaranteed income plan, which seemingly has nothing to do with race.  According to the web page of Oakland Resilient Families (ORF):

ORF wrote:Oakland Resilient Families is targeted to support families with the greatest wealth disparities per the Oakland Equity Index, with low-incomes and at least 1 child under 18,  regardless of documentation status. The term “family” is defined broadly to recognize that families come in all shapes and sizes.

https://oaklandresilientfamilies.org/

As far as I can figure out, the plan is a guaranteed-income plan that has nothing to do with race.  The Daily Mail, for reasons of their own, has decided to infer race by resulting statistics, and not intent.

It is true, that if you are targeting low-income families, you are going to include a lot of black people...Jim Crow segregation has always steered blacks out of remunerative educations, and into subsistence-wage jobs.  So if you target "low-income", you're going to coincidentally get a lot of blacks.  As I suspected (above), the attempt to make this a race-based program is false.

Apparently, the Daily Mail has just discovered a fact of life in the good ole' racist USA: Here, there be systemic racism, matey.  All we can say is, Welcome Brau...have a cuppa tea.  

The Daily Mail is well known for putting their own controversial slant on news stories.
I would never trust just their account of whatever story they are writing about.

Syl wrote:The Daily Mail is well known for putting their own controversial slant on news stories.
I would never trust just their account of whatever story they are writing about.

Very wise

Syl wrote:The Daily Mail is well known for putting their own controversial slant on news stories.
I would never trust just their account of whatever story they are writing about.

Low-income families of color in Oakland, California, could receive some extra financial assistance over the next year and a half.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced this week that the city will launch a guaranteed income project to give hundreds of Black and Indigenous families and people of color $500 per month for 18 months.

The project's payments will be unconditional, and recipients may spend the money however they choose.

The Oakland Resilient Families program is the latest trial of a "guaranteed income" system of wealth distribution, where residents are given a set amount of money per month to supplement the existing social safety net.

https://www.phillytrib.com/news/across_america/oakland-will-give-low-income-families-of-color-500-per-month-no-strings-attached/article_8051cc86-873f-5797-98e1-5da7eb6704b4.html

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The mayor of Oakland, California, on Tuesday announced a privately funded program that will give low-income families of color $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it.

https://apnews.com/article/oakland-launch-guaranteed-income-low-income-family-of-color-f3c3891bd8b359695ca4c6dc9ba3f8ff

Maddog wrote:SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The mayor of Oakland, California, on Tuesday announced a privately funded program that will give low-income families of color $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it.

https://apnews.com/article/oakland-launch-guaranteed-income-low-income-family-of-color-f3c3891bd8b359695ca4c6dc9ba3f8ff

Nothing about that is untrue. If you isolate the poor for a “guaranteed income”, you get blacks. It isn't intentional, it’s just the result of slavery, on down to present-day segregation:

AP wrote:The program is the latest experiment with a “guaranteed income,” an idea that giving poor people a set amount of money each month helps ease the stresses of poverty that often lead to poor health while hindering their ability to find full-time work.

The raw fact in American is that if you target those deserving of a “guaranteed income”—ie, those in lower incomes—you get blacks.

It's a sad fact of American life that we should change.

Are there no white families in Oakland that earn less than 59,000€?
Who is donating the money in the first place? 

It sounds racist to me whichever way it's looked at.

Original Quill wrote:

Nothing about that is untrue.  If you isolate the poor for a “guaranteed income”, you get blacks.  It isn't intentional, it’s just the result of slavery, on down to present-day segregation:

AP wrote:The program is the latest experiment with a “guaranteed income,” an idea that giving poor people a set amount of money each month helps ease the stresses of poverty that often lead to poor health while hindering their ability to find full-time work.

The raw fact in American is that if you target those deserving of a “guaranteed income”—ie, those in lower incomes—you get blacks. It's a sad fact of American life that we should change.

Yes I said as much, Quill. Just a guess on my part. Good that you have confirmed this.
Cos I read recently that when slavery was finally abolished in 1865, they were released without a dime of compensation for providing a lifetime of free labour, they left with just the clothes on their backs.  Like opening the stable door and releasing the elderly pack horse that has toiled all its life.

So the automatic cascading of wealth down the generations that is a cumulative process, did not happen with the blacks,  and this is one of the reasons for their inbuilt poverty.

Syl wrote:Are there no white families in Oakland that earn less than 59,000€?

Very, very few. Most of them are in the Piedmont area, or in the Oakland Hills.

Syl wrote:Who is donating the money in the first place? 

The article doesn't say.  But the funds seem to be controlled by a private entity called "Oakland Resilient Families".

Syl wrote:It sounds racist to me whichever way it's looked at.

Or, it's remedial.  They are not the same.  Racism tries to hold the racehorse back.  Remedial efforts put the horse back in the race.  

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:

I see.
Well obviously a different approach is needed as it's turned into a diplomatic problem.

The mayor should market this as a drive to ensure there is a minimum wage in the county. A sort of safety net.
A Venn diagram will most likely show that while there are poor people of all colours, the absolute poorest at the bottom of the ladder are the black folks anyway. So just give the money to that particular group, without mentioning the sensitive issue of colour.

RESULT!!

California has a minimum wage.  

There's always room for improvement. The clue is in the word minimum. Raise the bar.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

California has a minimum wage.  

There's always room for improvement.  The clue is in the word minimum. Raise the bar.

Correct.  The CA minimum wage is $15/hour.  The federal minimum wage is $7/hour.  Minimum wage jobs exist basically to subsidize poverty in America.  If you want poverty to continue--as capitalist do, and as Senator Joe Manchin does--you vote against raising the minimum wage.

Most decent people want to eliminate poverty.  It's one of the crucial points between capitalists and the progressive-thinking population.  It's one of the major reasons why the American public has moved to the left of Washingtonians...or the slacker-brains in Congress.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Are there no white families in Oakland that earn less than 59,000€?

Very, very few.  Most of them are in the Piedmont area, or in the Oakland Hills.

Syl wrote:Who is donating the money in the first place? 

The article doesn't say.  But the funds seem to be controlled by a private entity called "Oakland Resilient Families".

Syl wrote:It sounds racist to me whichever way it's looked at.

Or, it's remedial.  They are not the same.  Racism tries to hold the racehorse back.  Remedial efforts put the horse back in the race.  

If the money is donated privately, like has been said, the donator is entitled to say where the money goes. Same as people who donate to charities, their money their right to choose.

If it's public money, it should be distributed fairly, not  just to blacks.

It's not public money...case closed. All sides agree on that.

It appears to be funds filtered through a private institution. Oakland and its mayor are simply applauding the fact that they are able to attract such private benefactors for an Oakland "guaranteed income" program.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

California has a minimum wage.  

There's always room for improvement.  The clue is in the word minimum. Raise the bar.

Make it $50/hr.

What could go wrong?

Original Quill wrote:

JulesV wrote:
There's always room for improvement.  The clue is in the word minimum. Raise the bar.

Correct.  The CA minimum wage is $15/hour.  The federal minimum wage is $7/hour.  Minimum wage jobs exist basically to subsidize poverty in America.  If you want poverty to continue--as capitalist do, and as Senator Joe Manchin does--you vote against raising the minimum wage.

Most decent people want to eliminate poverty.  It's one of the crucial points between capitalists and the progressive-thinking population.  It's one of the major reasons why the American public has moved to the left of Washingtonians...or the slacker-brains in Congress.

Why doesn't Mexico just raise their minimum wage and eliminate poverty?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Very, very few.  Most of them are in the Piedmont area, or in the Oakland Hills.



The article doesn't say.  But the funds seem to be controlled by a private entity called "Oakland Resilient Families".



Or, it's remedial.  They are not the same.  Racism tries to hold the racehorse back.  Remedial efforts put the horse back in the race.  

If the money is donated privately, like has been said, the donator is entitled to say where the money goes. Same as people who donate to charities, their money their right to choose.

If it's public money, it should be distributed fairly, not  just to blacks.

It's private money being dispersed by the city.

The Klan could donate money to poor white families. People would raise holy hell if that money was dispersed by a government agency.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, they're not.  That's one of those Jim Crow Myths, perpetuated by southerners.

Jim Crow looks at all enrollment as a zero-sum game, taking all admissions as a base, and calculating all advantages to one race, as detractions to another race.  You see this in your reasoning: "...people not accepted that have higher scores than those not accepted are penalized."  

You don't get the concept of additive benefits.  Your reasoning is zero-sum.  You're just aggregating all students accepted, instead of setting aside the benefits, and then counting the advantages granted to one, to be disadvantages to the other.  Additive benefits are in addition to the aggregate, not to be detracted as penalties.

The study found that, without affirmative action, the acceptance rate for African-American candidates at elite colleges would be likely to fall by nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants probably would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent.

White applicants would have seen little change in this analysis. Their admission rate would rise slightly, to 24.3 percent, from 23.8 percent.

The big gains would be for Asian applicants. Their admission rate in a race-neutral system would go to 23.4 percent, from 17.6 percent. And their share of a class of admitted students would rise to 31.5 percent, from 23.7 percent."

We already established, your study is based on phony numbers.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The study found that, without affirmative action, the acceptance rate for African-American candidates at elite colleges would be likely to fall by nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants probably would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent.

White applicants would have seen little change in this analysis. Their admission rate would rise slightly, to 24.3 percent, from 23.8 percent.

The big gains would be for Asian applicants. Their admission rate in a race-neutral system would go to 23.4 percent, from 17.6 percent. And their share of a class of admitted students would rise to 31.5 percent, from 23.7 percent."

We already established, your study is based on phony numbers.

I didn't do the study.

Korben posted the study.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
If the money is donated privately, like has been said, the donator is entitled to say where the money goes. Same as people who donate to charities, their money their right to choose.

If it's public money, it should be distributed fairly, not  just to blacks.

It's private money being dispersed by the city.

No, it's not even being dispersed by the city. It's all being handled by the Oakland Resilient Families organization. What Mayor Shaaf and the City of Oakland are boasting about is that they successfully brought the organization in to benefit Oaklanders.

It's like if a mayor was successful bringing a Fortune 500 company to his town, he would brag on it. He's not suddenly the president of the company, nor does he deliver the paychecks, nor even hand out samples. But it's something of value that his efforts brought in.

The Daily Mail has twisted the story to suggest, but abandoned at the last moment, that the City of Oakland is handling the matter. They stop short of actually saying Oakland is in charge, which is why the article appears choppy...a discerning reader has trouble finding answers in the article.

Syl wrote:Are there no white families in Oakland that earn less than 59,000€?
Who is donating the money in the first place? 

It sounds racist to me whichever way it's looked at.

Of course there is.

Why wasn't a charity set up by this organisation?

Charities collect and donate money to single causes, some differentiate by sex, there are charities that help only women, some benefit only men, kids charities, elephant and cat charities, it would have caused less trouble had the money come from a specific charity.

Still racist against poverty stricken white families imo though.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
If the money is donated privately, like has been said, the donator is entitled to say where the money goes. Same as people who donate to charities, their money their right to choose.

If it's public money, it should be distributed fairly, not  just to blacks.

It's private money being dispersed by the city.  

The Klan could donate money to poor white families.  People would raise holy hell if that money was dispersed by a government agency.  

People would automatically ''raise holy hell'' in ANY matters to do with the klan anyway. Just the name itself would get them riled, let alone anything else.

Why would anyone use the Klan as their yardstick in a thread like this?  Surely you are better than this. Do you mention them often in your RL conversations? Do you move in circles where they are regarded as  "fine people, very very fine people?  

The Klan lynched young girls (i've seen some gruesome photos) among numerous other atrocities, they are nobody's heroes.

Syl wrote:Why wasn't a charity set up by this organisation?

Charities collect and donate money to single causes, some differentiate by sex, there are charities that help only women, some benefit only men, kids charities, elephant and cat charities, it would have caused less trouble had the money come from a specific charity.

What do you mean by charity? I think Oakland Resilient Families is a charitable organization. What Mayor Shaaf and the City are crowing about is the fact that they were successful in landing that charitable organization, to exercise their charitable focus on Oakland.

Syl wrote:Still racist against poverty stricken white families imo though.

In a perfect world, there might be charities that would focus on white families only. But Oakland Resilient Families focuses on all families. The fact of race is not intentional, nor even a policy. It is happenstance that people in lower incomes happen to be blacks and minorities.

We can have another conversation about why blacks have lower incomes in a city in America. But that conversation would likely lead us into a discussion of economic racism, and might not be pleasant for whites.

The fact is that this article is a jumble of deceptive words and look-alike tokens, aimed at making something appear to be something else.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's private money being dispersed by the city.  

The Klan could donate money to poor white families.  People would raise holy hell if that money was dispersed by a government agency.  

People would automatically ''raise holy hell'' in ANY matters to do with the klan anyway. Just the name itself would get them riled, let alone anything else.

Why would anyone use the Klan as their yardstick in a thread like this?  Surely you are better than this. Do you mention them often in your RL conversations? Do you move in circles where they are regarded as  "fine people, very very fine people?  

The Klan lynched young girls (i've seen some gruesome photos) among numerous other atrocities, they are nobody's heroes.

So racism bothers you now?

Now all you need is some consistency.

Syl wrote:Why wasn't a charity set up by this organisation?

Charities collect and donate money to single causes, some differentiate by sex, there are charities that help only women, some benefit only men, kids charities, elephant and cat charities, it would have caused less trouble had the money come from a specific charity.

Still racist against poverty stricken white families imo though.

I don't know.

This whole thing stinks.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Why wasn't a charity set up by this organisation?

Charities collect and donate money to single causes, some differentiate by sex, there are charities that help only women, some benefit only men, kids charities, elephant and cat charities, it would have caused less trouble had the money come from a specific charity.

What do you mean by charity?  I think Oakland Resilient Families is a charitable organization.  What Mayor Shaaf and the City are crowing about is the fact that they were successful in landing that charitable organization, to exercise their charitable focus on Oakland.

Syl wrote:Still racist against poverty stricken white families imo though.

In a perfect world, there might be charities that would focus on white families only.  But Oakland Resilient Families focuses on all families.  The fact of race is not intentional, nor even a policy.  It is happenstance that people in lower incomes happen to be blacks and minorities.

We can have another conversation about why blacks have lower incomes in a city in America.  But that conversation would likely lead us into a discussion of economic racism, and might not be pleasant for whites.

The fact is that this article is a jumble of deceptive words and look-alike tokens, aimed at making something appear to be something else.

Well, it's Oakland . Where white liberals from San Francisco have been shoving blacks to for decades. Keep them across the bay eh?

It's hard to imagine that could happen here....unless I am being very naive.

We obviously have poor areas, we have areas where there are more poor blacks than poor whites, and vice versa.

If money is donated to any specific area to help the underprivileged , unless it's for a named charity, I can't see it ever being allocated to people depending only on their colour, it would surely go to the people who are the poorest...whatever shade they are..