₦airaland Forum

tctrills:
Oga you are the lazy one who refused to do his assignment all you did was copy and paste. That is irresponsible.
Please stop reading anti trump articles they mislead you and make you less intelligent

Black history in the US is still being taught. It's taught much more than in any other country that had black slaves even under Trump

+
Good evening.

tctrills:
Oga I know you are very smart so no need to act dumb, you did not provide one example of anything trump has eradicated.
Here are extracts from your article.

Removal and Alteration of Public Exhibits (National Parks & Museums):
Not one example given to show if this constitutes removal of black history or if this is just noise.

The "Scourged Back"
This maybe the best example you have but again removing this from public parks is not same as deleting black history. We can't have every artist work on public parks so it's up to each admin to determine and make a preference.

Richmond National Battlefield Scrutiny
This is maybe the dumbest of all. According to your copy and paste, the center was flagged for review because it contained "negative" information about America’s racial past.
I mean, that a reasonable thing to do.

Let's do one more
Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling" (Jan 29, 2025):
Please explain how this deletes black history.

Do you see why I am not taking you serious?

+
This is both lazy and embarrassing.
I have nothing to add.

tctrills:
Sir, I read your entire article but I am not sure you read it because if you did, you will see that it did not attempt to answer my question.
It get it, it is another anti trump article but I am asking for facts not noise.

Now can you,
1. List the museums, art works or historic facts that trump has deleted.

2. Mention any detail about black history that used to be taught in schools but has been removed.

These 2 questions are easy enough and your article did not resolve any

+
If you have not seen in the long lists I provided enough evidence of the Trump administration's efforts to erase and water down black heroes, black history and the history of discrimination against blacks in America, I have nothing else to add.

What I have put up there is sufficient for both posterity and all honest passersby.

Indeed you are the one being bizarre by attempting to deny policies that the administration is open about.

tctrills:
No one reads what you write

+
You are destroying any pretense to integrity you have. You are the same person who asked for instances of actions at parks and museums. Now that you have been presented with such, you are changing the goal post.

Tomorrow you will have the nerve to call me a liar.

Shior.

tctrills:
Oga, this is just a copy and paste that truly is meaningless.
Let's have a very meaningful exercise that will benefit both of us please.
List just one historic fact that used to be taught before Trump that is no longer taught.

That's all you needed to do. Don't send me anyone's article with out listing just one historic fact that has been deleted.

Do this to show your honesty.

Thanks

+
Its lazy to claim "copy and paste" and walk away. Kindly address the points in that "copy and paste" if you can.
I find this disgusting and cowardly.

You ask for details, I go to the trouble of extracting details for you and this is all you have to say? That its "copy and paste?"
If I may ask, when they are all recorded events, am I supposed to write them all out in my own new words? ? ? ?

At all events, I knew how you would react.

Your reaction is cowardly and escapist and it shows you are the one who has been either ignorant or dishonest.

Anyway, not for your sake, but for passersby, I leave more -

- - -- - - - -- - -

In the second Trump administration (2025–present), efforts to reshape the national narrative regarding Black history and slavery have intensified through executive orders, federal agency directives, and budget reallocations.

Below are exhaustive examples and links detailing these actions, categorized by their impact on public history, education, and federal institutions.

1. Removal and Alteration of Public Exhibits (National Parks & Museums): The administration has used the "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" Executive Order (issued March 27, 2025) to audit and remove content deemed "disparaging" to the United States.

The "Scourged Back" Photo Removal: In September 2025 - the Department of the Interior ordered the removal of the 1863 photograph of "Gordon" (an enslaved man with severe whipping scars) from National Park sites, arguing it promoted a "corrosive ideology."Source: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) -

Erasing History - President’s House Slavery Exhibit (Philadelphia): In January 2026, the National Park Service removed plaques detailing the lives of nine people enslaved by George Washington at the President’s House site. The city of Philadelphia successfully sued to have them temporarily reinstalled in February 2026.Source: Equal Justice Initiative - NPS Removes Exhibit on Enslaved People

Richmond National Battlefield Scrutiny: Leaked documents from July 2025 showed that signage at the Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site (dedicated to the first Black woman to charter a bank) was flagged for review because it contained "negative" information about America’s racial past. Source: The Richmonder.

Signs at Richmond Sites Flagged National Museum of African American History & Culture (NMAAHC): The administration issued an Executive Order specifically targeting the Smithsonian, criticizing exhibits that describe the "atrocities surrounding colonialism and enslavement" as "partisan ideology. "Source: Buffalo State Record - Black History Month under Trump’s Second Term

2. Education and Curriculum Restrictions: The administration has targeted "Discriminatory Equity Ideology" (its term for DEI and CRT) to limit how systemic racism and slavery are taught in schools.

EO "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling" (Jan 29, 2025): This order threatens to pull Title I and IDEA funding from schools that teach that "an individual... bears responsibility for... actions committed in the past by other members of the same race."Source: White House Official Action

Ending Radical Indoctrination Reestablishment of the 1776 Commission: The administration re-chartered the 1776 Commission to promote "patriotic education" and develop the "Presidential 1776 Award" for students who demonstrate a "celebratory" understanding of the American founding, often omitting the role of slavery.Source: Dept. of Education

1776 Commission Charter - Banned Words in Federal Grants: In early 2025, the administration barred the use of words like "race," "diversity," and "belonging" in grant applications for programs like Head Start, effectively forcing organizations to scrub racial context to receive funding. Source: Word in Black - Teaching Truth is Under Attack

3. Institutional and Holiday Rollbacks: Beyond curriculum, the administration has moved to reduce the visibility of Black historical milestones within the federal government.

Elimination of "Identity Months" at the Pentagon: In January 2025, the Department of War (formerly Defense) issued a memo stating that official resources would no longer be used for "cultural awareness months," including Black History Month. Source: The Record - Identity Months Dead within Department

Juneteenth and MLK Day Fee Changes: In 2026, the administration eliminated free-admission days for National Parks on MLK Day and Juneteenth, while designating the President’s birthday as a new fee-free day. Source: Kauai Now News - Hirono Slams Trump’s Attacks on National Parks

Removal of Black Lives Matter Plaza: The administration coordinated with local and federal authorities to remove the "Black Lives Matter" mural and signage from the street leading to the White House in early 2025.Source: Congressman Bennie Thompson - Trump's Policies Target Black Americans

4. Civil Rights Advocacy & Analysis: Several legal and civil rights organizations have tracked these efforts as a coordinated strategy to dismantle racial progress. ACLU Analysis: The ACLU has documented the administration's "all-out assault" on DEI, describing it as an effort to erase marginalized communities from the public square. Source: ACLU

Trump’s Attacks on DEI Thurgood Marshall Institute: Their report on "Project 2025" implementation details how the abolition of the Department of Education’s civil rights office specifically removes protections for Black students regarding historical curriculum. Source: TMI - Project 2025 Threats to Education.
--------------------
*Culled

There you go.

And there is yet even more.

Feel free to dismiss it as "copy and paste" as though these events and acts are imaginary.

I knew how you would react anyway, I only put this here for others and for posterity.

Goodluck!

tctrills:
My guy,
I respect you and myself too much that I wouldn't just post a brunch of untruths just because I hate or dislike someone and I expect the same from you.

If you have any evidence that the Trump administration is removing or deleting black/slavery history please share but if not, it wouldn't be fair to make things up just for the sake of argument.

Let us be guided

+
Sometimes one can only shake one's head at the confidence with which you make some utterances. The effort to erase black historical contribution as well as the effects of slavery, segregation and racism has been massive. It is crazy that anyone can claim to be unaware of it. That is why Ijebos asked if you were living in a black hole.

Anyway, I extract the following. There is much much more, but for starters -

-----------------
Since the start of the second Trump administration in January 2025, there has been a significant shift in how the federal government handles the presentation of Black history, slavery, and diversity initiatives.

Critics and historians describe these actions as an effort to "erase" or "sanitize" difficult aspects of American history, while the administration frames them as a move toward "colorblind" meritocracy and "Restoring Truth and Sanity" to the national narrative.

Below is a breakdown of these efforts, categorized by the specific mechanisms used.

1. Executive Orders Targeting "Ideology" in History
The administration has utilized executive orders to directly intervene in how history is taught and memorialized at the federal level.

EO "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" (March 27, 2025): This order targets what it describes as a "distorted narrative driven by ideology." It specifically directs the Interior Department to reinstate or remove historical materials at National Park sites to ensure they do not "inappropriately minimize" certain aspects of history or promote "false reconstructions."

EO "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling" (Jan 29, 2025): This order threatens to withhold federal funding from schools that teach "discriminatory equity ideology." It defines this as any curriculum suggesting that individuals are inherently oppressive or bear responsibility for past actions of their race (often targeting the teaching of systemic racism).

Abolishing the Department of Education: The administration has moved to close the federal Department of Education, aiming to return all curricular authority to the states. Critics argue this will allow states to remove Black history requirements without federal oversight or civil rights enforcement.

2. Removal of Historical Displays and Memorials
Several high-profile instances of physical and digital history removal have occurred under these new mandates:

Fort Pulaski "Scarred Back" Removal (Sept 2025): The famous 1863 photograph of "Gordon," a man who escaped slavery with severe whipping scars, was removed from a National Monument display in Georgia to comply with the "Restoring Truth" order.

The President's House Enslaved People Exhibit (Feb 2026): The administration attempted to remove biographical panels about nine people enslaved by George Washington at the Philadelphia memorial. This was temporarily blocked by a court order.

Pentagon & Federal Web Purges: In early 2025, the Pentagon marked thousands of pages for deletion. This included a page on Jackie Robinson, which was only restored after a massive public outcry.

Removal of Black Lives Matter Plaza: The administration oversaw the removal of the Black Lives Matter street mural and signage in Washington, D.C.

3. Funding Cuts for Black Institutions and Programs
The administration has shifted federal financial priorities away from institutions dedicated to African American advancement.

Defunding Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs): In late 2025, the Department of Education halted both discretionary and mandatory funding for MSIs, citing a DOJ opinion that race-based funding is "unconstitutional."

HBCU Scrutiny: While the administration claims to support "excellence" at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, it has simultaneously rolled back DEI initiatives and reduced specific Dept. of Education grants that supported these schools' unique missions.

Head Start Restrictions: Federal guidance issued in 2025 banned the use of federal funds for any training or materials that promote "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," impacting early childhood programs that serve many Black families.

4. International Revisionism
UN Vote Against Condemning Slavery (March 2026): The U.S. was one of only three nations to vote against a United Nations resolution that called the transatlantic slave trade a "crime against humanity" and supported reparations. The administration argued the resolution was part of a "far-left" effort to divide nations.
_______________
*Culled.

Don't worry, I know you will dismiss everything above as nothing. Standard.

There are many many more examples, such as the crackdown on Critical Race Theory, the removal of black soldiers of honor from Department of Defense records, and even things as petty as removing pictures of black heroes from the white house.

But as I said, you will deny everything with a wave of your hand and even call me a liar and "wicked."

benalvino3:
What is the message was he passing when he said this



What is the message is some one passing if they learned alot from a video like that, made by a Kenyan?

Are you going to call the Kenyan who did the research a H N now?

+
Never mind.

bemeruca:
Guys watch this and tell me if deepsight is not crazy.
So Charlie Kirk is racist for posting this?

+
Are you telling me you missed the message he was passing?

Anyway, its not surprising.

Election Money

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

bemeruca:
This one you are saying is new and I think you might be misjudging him

DeepSight:
+
What is new? I gave you a whole list, you dismissed everything.
Oh, the one about the retweet. Yes, its a fact, let me find it.

+
Have a look here and go ahead and defend again.

Charlie Kirk reposted this tweet: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1958744916818796844

IjeBos:
Hours (practice and experience) are the most important thing when it comes to flying
Basilico: I've sat in the jump seat(passenger seat) of a plane several times so I have experience flying planes.


I'm sad for what we call education nowadays.
People keep proving you have to be low IQ to be MAGA.

+
I found that post of his rather odd to say the least/.

bemeruca:
As you learn the context of what he said you see none of it are racist. So you want to say he said this small thing here, there and so and so. Let's just conclude he is a racist because they are uncomfortable but legitimate topic or discussion to be heard.

This one you are saying is new and I think you might be misjudging him

+
What is new? I gave you a whole list, you dismissed everything.
Oh, the one about the retweet. Yes, its a fact, let me find it.

bemeruca:
Yeah, you can say it is wrong but don't say he is racist for that or what he was saying is racist

+
Remember what I said about many statements being corroborative. If those were the only things he said, people wouldnt shout racism. But he made MANY different statements, including reposting and supporting a raycist tweet that claimed Africans cannot plan ahead, and lack words for the future.

MaxInDHouse:
All that nah STORY!
That's why you can't present any better performing group than JWs you can only carry false accusations and rumors in your head.🤣

+
The ever-changing revelations are undeniable.

bemeruca:
Yeah, but Charlie Kirk issue about the civil rights act was against government overreach not black people.

You have called him a racist for that without understanding the argument he is making.

+
I have shown that his argument was wrong and if you read the post I made to basilico you will also see that there were underlying sentiments with the way he spoke of MLK.

The Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with what he complains of: look at my post to basilico you will see that I cited the sections of the Act which specifically prohibit the things he complained about. So he didnt have a clue what he was arguing and its obvious he never read the Act.

And to add one more thing. Just as with Trump, when a person has made many raycist statements, its corroborative. You can excuse a few and rationalize them, but when there are many, it speaks to a bent.

bemeruca:
You will hear me say black people were doing better in that era in terms of looking after their own, family values, two parent households etc. Aside from that they were in a struggle too.



The reason Charlie said it was a mistake has nothing to do with the rights of black people. What he was saying is the civil rights act's goal of ending Jim Crow was legitimate and noble,

His argument is that; it overreach by giving government permanent authority over private businesses and employment. and that this spawned bureaucratic tools like the EEOC and disparate impact doctrine that drifted into reverse discrimination and speech suppression.

His position is that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was always the proper constitutional vehicle making the statute unnecessary and ultimately harmful to limited government and individual liberty. So his argument has nothing against black people.



How can black people be better off on slavery?

+
Thank you for clarifying but pls see my detailed response to basilico on Kirk's statement on the Civil Rights Act.

DeepSight:
+
Now I have watched your video (edit: looks like you just added another one).

The simple fact is that if he was only against the way in which people have manipulated the Civil Rights Act towards other ends, he should have said so clearly. His subsequent attempts to explain away his initial remarks are not honest. The Civil Rights Act was a moral and legal necessity in the United States and along with the Voting Rights Act it came to correct more than a century of deprivation of rights based on race.

Affirmative Action, and the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which he complains arose from the Civil Rights Act are not evils - and more importantly, did not in fact arise from the Act as he claimed - which I will show below. They are ideological frameworks set up to correct institutional exclusion and the marginalization which black people had suffered for ages. Without such frameworks, it is not possible to correct the institutional and economic harm done to a segment of the population for ages and which had become radically entrenched in many ways.

The same principle was deployed and still stands in South Africa after apartheid. And it makes sense. When you are moving from an apartheid system to an egalitarian system of true equality of rights, there is the necessity to correct entrenched inequalities and you can only do that by giving those who have been locked out of the system a real chance to be included - which is what undergirds the idea of saying, look, to correct the imbalance, we are now going to give priority to these people - just the same way we gave priority to white people for ages! What is not fair about that?

Do you know that for ages the American government for example, gave out virtually free expanses of land to white people? They did not do this for black people. Now that was a policy that created generations of wealthy white people - without any question of merit. At the same time it impoverished black people and shunt them to the margins of society putting them in the economic position whereby they would have to work in servitude.

If such privileges were given to generations of white people which account for the generational wealth white people have as against the generational poverty of black people - tell me, what is wrong with saying, okay, now that we are done with segregation and all that, lets give a real chance to the marginalized people by now prioritizing them?

This is the core of affirmative action and DEI and there is nothing wrong with it. In South Africa, after apartheid, it was introduced as BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) and laws were made establishing minimum quotas for black ownership of businesses and black employment, which still stand till today. For a person who talks about context it is sad that you miss the context here - no one woke up suddenly to grant the blacks these privileges from no where, the context was the deprivation and abominable discrimination they had already suffered and the only way to bring them to par on board would be to apply these privileges - which frankly are still nothing compared to the ages of discriminatory privilages granted to whites which elevated them economically in the first place.

It is important that you understand in this that segregation in the USA was nothing but apartheid as well. IN FACT, it is the very definition of apartheid BECAUSE apartheid means apartness.

I have written long so let me tie it up - If the complaint of Charlie Kirk was against affirmative action and DEI principles, then he should not have attacked the Civil Rights Act. Above, I have shown that there is in fact nothing wrong with both affirmative action and DEI in the context and circumstances, but let me take it a step further. Let me show you that he was even wrong in linking both to the Civil Rights Act -

I have argued this before and I reproduce it here.

Here goes:

As I said, the Civil Rights Act did not legislate Affirmative Action.

Title VII & Title VI prohibit employment discrimination and discrimination in federally funded programs - thus the Civil Rights Act is an anti-discrimination law. It states that employment decisions should not be made "because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

This is exactly what it set out to do because of the overwhelming existing discrimination against Black people. I hope you understand that we are talking about a movement and a law that saved blacks from segregation, much systemic discrimination including housing discrimination and accompanied with the Voting Rights Act empowered blacks to vote by removing many of the systemic impediments blocking blacks from voting.

Note that:
Title VII includes a specific section (Section 703(j)) which states that employers are not required to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group due to an imbalance in the number or percentage of protected groups in their workforce. This language was intended to prevent the act from being interpreted as a mandate for racial quotas.

Thus it is very very wrong to claim that the Civil Rights Act was problematic or "went too far" with respect to affirmative action.

Affirmative Action actually arose thereafter though executive orders and judicial pronouncements in the context of the succeeding period and the zeitgeist of the time which was directed towards restoring as much equality as possible.

Therefore it is clear that Charlie was VERY wrong in saying that the Civl Rights Act was a mistake. In fact, he was not schooled on the details of the Act as I have shown above.

Now finally, just to show you that there was something insidious about his opposition to the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, what was his problem with Martin Luther King? He made statements attacking such an icon - I cull -

"1. On the MLK Holiday: Kirk questioned the national celebration of Dr. King, stating, "I think we’ve made a huge mistake in the way we have idolized and deified Martin Luther King."

2. On King's Legacy: He referred to King as "not a good person" in various broadcasts, often citing King's personal life or his later-stage political views on economic redistribution as reasons to distance the conservative movement from his legacy."

What was the motivation behind these attacks on the person of Dr. King?

Dtruthspeaker:
Are you now pretending not to see he said "spirits don't exist" only for him to shoot himself in the head confessing that "Spirit is real"?

Anyway, you yourself are known to love lies

Re: Atheist Says Spirit Is Nothing Because It Is Non Physical & Invisible by StillDtruth: 5:27am On Apr 17, 2024
budaatum:
Only fools relies on their naked eyes alone. Some get glasses so they can see better.
more ↓
Yet you said "spirit dont exist".

So, why do.you say they do not exist, since you know only fools rely on their naked eyes alone?

+
I saw him/ her describe what he/she meant. and specifically say that for example, reading your posts is seeing evidence of your spirit.

bemeruca:
I have talked and notice how you ignored it 😂

+
You only answered for apartheid. Talk. E get why.

bemeruca:
If you believe it's my opinion then why are you asking?

You have already made up crap in your head.

+
I am asking you, talk.

bemeruca:
What does your fantasies have to do with my post?
How are your questions related to the video I posted.

+
Are you afraid or shamed of your own opinions? Two people said you certain things. Answer, I want to confirm.
I added the apartheid one myself as I think it is corelated.

Dtruthspeaker:
See the day badatum disgraced himself in his created self confusion

https://www.nairaland.com/8074757/budaatum-confesses-spirit-real#129658806

https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/1#129479047

+
Haven't really seen any embarrassment

jahsharon:
.
Even if all 230 million Nigerians collapse structures into ADC, Tinubu will still win with very high margins

+
In Nigeria of today there is the terrifying possibility that he could win the election with even one vote cast by himself.

Richtaiwo:
From my understanding, if you are not indebted to the DisCos, you are unlikely to experience significant power issues. In my estate, electricity is available almost 24 hours a day, which makes it difficult for me to relate to the frequent complaints about power supply.

Even during a national grid collapse, the only noticeable impact in my estate is a slight reduction in daytime supply, we still have uninterrupted electricity throughout the night.

+
Perhaps your estate is well situated and lucky then. No one can deny the power issues as you attempt to.

This boy, are you sure you will not also claim that Naija is doing so well that it's as good as Switzerland in all respects?

Because so long as BAT is in power looks like you will say so.

MaxInDHouse:
You are really funny my guy!🙂
In the first century a man sold his friend out for money.
And guess what?
He is one of the closest confidants of a man who claims to be the perfect teacher ever on this planet!
Another man denied his friend he even laid curses on himself swearing never to have seen him before.
And guess what?
He is also one of the closest confidants of the same man.
Another man was sleeping with his step mom and can you believe that he is also one of the followers of this same man?
Well these are verified blunders committed by Jesus' friends in the first century apart from numerous lies that people lied against him and his group.
So if you were alive in the first century and you've heard all of these would you still believe that this man is the only begotten Son of God and that only his followers can have everlasting life?🙂

+
Was the man who slept with his father's wife a friend of Jesus in his lifetime?

Pacesetter123:
And you think America attacking other countries or demanding for something before helping others will end when Trump's administration ends?
This things are American laid down policies and not of any particular president or their political parties.

+
Agreed, but never with such brazen insults, threats and disregard to their traditional European allies.

basilico:
Let's start with this black American regarding Charlie Kirks comments on black and civil rights


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SZUuTZ8ebA?si=1IlPKAFQsaKPl5Vo

And this one too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXxmgMV15fk?si=fLASMw5ln_gPfSnN

+
Now I have watched your video (edit: looks like you just added another one).

The simple fact is that if he was only against the way in which people have manipulated the Civil Rights Act towards other ends, he should have said so clearly. His subsequent attempts to explain away his initial remarks are not honest. The Civil Rights Act was a moral and legal necessity in the United States and along with the Voting Rights Act it came to correct more than a century of deprivation of rights based on race.

Affirmative Action, and the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which he complains arose from the Civil Rights Act are not evils - and more importantly, did not in fact arise from the Act as he claimed - which I will show below. They are ideological frameworks set up to correct institutional exclusion and the marginalization which black people had suffered for ages. Without such frameworks, it is not possible to correct the institutional and economic harm done to a segment of the population for ages and which had become radically entrenched in many ways.

The same principle was deployed and still stands in South Africa after apartheid. And it makes sense. When you are moving from an apartheid system to an egalitarian system of true equality of rights, there is the necessity to correct entrenched inequalities and you can only do that by giving those who have been locked out of the system a real chance to be included - which is what undergirds the idea of saying, look, to correct the imbalance, we are now going to give priority to these people - just the same way we gave priority to white people for ages! What is not fair about that?

Do you know that for ages the American government for example, gave out virtually free expanses of land to white people? They did not do this for black people. Now that was a policy that created generations of wealthy white people - without any question of merit. At the same time it impoverished black people and shunt them to the margins of society putting them in the economic position whereby they would have to work in servitude.

If such privileges were given to generations of white people which account for the generational wealth white people have as against the generational poverty of black people - tell me, what is wrong with saying, okay, now that we are done with segregation and all that, lets give a real chance to the marginalized people by now prioritizing them?

This is the core of affirmative action and DEI and there is nothing wrong with it. In South Africa, after apartheid, it was introduced as BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) and laws were made establishing minimum quotas for black ownership of businesses and black employment, which still stand till today. For a person who talks about context it is sad that you miss the context here - no one woke up suddenly to grant the blacks these privileges from no where, the context was the deprivation and abominable discrimination they had already suffered and the only way to bring them to par on board would be to apply these privileges - which frankly are still nothing compared to the ages of discriminatory privilages granted to whites which elevated them economically in the first place.

It is important that you understand in this that segregation in the USA was nothing but apartheid as well. IN FACT, it is the very definition of apartheid BECAUSE apartheid means apartness.

I have written long so let me tie it up - If the complaint of Charlie Kirk was against affirmative action and DEI principles, then he should not have attacked the Civil Rights Act. Above, I have shown that there is in fact nothing wrong with both affirmative action and DEI in the context and circumstances, but let me take it a step further. Let me show you that he was even wrong in linking both to the Civil Rights Act -

I have argued this before and I reproduce it here.

Here goes:

As I said, the Civil Rights Act did not legislate Affirmative Action.

Title VII & Title VI prohibit employment discrimination and discrimination in federally funded programs - thus the Civil Rights Act is an anti-discrimination law. It states that employment decisions should not be made "because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

This is exactly what it set out to do because of the overwhelming existing discrimination against Black people. I hope you understand that we are talking about a movement and a law that saved blacks from segregation, much systemic discrimination including housing discrimination and accompanied with the Voting Rights Act empowered blacks to vote by removing many of the systemic impediments blocking blacks from voting.

Note that:
Title VII includes a specific section (Section 703(j)) which states that employers are not required to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group due to an imbalance in the number or percentage of protected groups in their workforce. This language was intended to prevent the act from being interpreted as a mandate for racial quotas.

Thus it is very very wrong to claim that the Civil Rights Act was problematic or "went too far" with respect to affirmative action.

Affirmative Action actually arose thereafter though executive orders and judicial pronouncements in the context of the succeeding period and the zeitgeist of the time which was directed towards restoring as much equality as possible.

Therefore it is clear that Charlie was VERY wrong in saying that the Civl Rights Act was a mistake. In fact, he was not schooled on the details of the Act as I have shown above.

Now finally, just to show you that there was something insidious about his opposition to the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, what was his problem with Martin Luther King? He made statements attacking such an icon - I cull -

"1. On the MLK Holiday: Kirk questioned the national celebration of Dr. King, stating, "I think we’ve made a huge mistake in the way we have idolized and deified Martin Luther King."

2. On King's Legacy: He referred to King as "not a good person" in various broadcasts, often citing King's personal life or his later-stage political views on economic redistribution as reasons to distance the conservative movement from his legacy."

What was the motivation behind these attacks on the person of Dr. King?

basilico:
Let's start with this black American regarding Charlie Kirks comments on black and civil rights


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SZUuTZ8ebA?si=1IlPKAFQsaKPl5Vo

+
I will watch this video, but pls, as we go along, I will appreciate it if you make your own arguments rather than sending me videos.
I will be back.

basilico:
Did I get you wrong. I was on the black pllot issue.

+
Pls look at your post and the post of mine you quoted when starting this -

https://www.nairaland.com/4508641/american-politics-thread-trump-47th/5853#138943959

Airtight Guest House. Interesting name.

basilico:
So hours are the most important thing when it comes to flying.

I've flown several times in the jump seat of 72-80 seaters.

+
Please you are making me think you are being deliberately dishonest. Please and please, if you want a serious discussion, be serious and stop pretending not to see what I write. I have told you I will come back to this issue of pilots in detail. And I will.

However you were reacting to a statement of mine when you said context is important. That statement was about Kirk's remarks on the Civil Rights Movement and Act which he called a mistake. You said context is important and I asked for the context. Only for you to divert to a completely different statement - the one on pilots.

Please basilico, can you tell me the context that explains or justifies what he said on the Civil Rights Movement/ Act.

If you pretend not to see this question one more time, I am done with you.

basilico:
If I knew the pilots were fast tracked in order to meet a racial quota, I would not fly in that plane.

+
There is nothing like a pilot being fast tracked. It's an area of specific expertise. There are minimum and irreducible tests you must pass and minimum amounts of training flights you must succeed at. That is why the argument fails. It's an area of specific expertise.

But I will give a more detailed response after you address the quote you quoted me on and raised context on.

I mentioned what he said on Civil Rights and you diverted to pilots.

Pls address what I was addressing.

I hope you are not being escapist or diversionary.

basilico:
The context is if United Airlines had not said they will increase their women and black quota of pilots from less than10% to 50% or so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3UwsNZ544?si=_yINuu-7tJwotXxR

Would you also fly . You know how DEI has been pushed by liberals , including hiring a known plagiarist the as Harvard President.

+
Hang on a second. You seem to be defending the pilot statement when you quoted me with regard to the statement on the Civil Rights Movement/ Act.

Get your act together pls.