In Oakland, California the Mayor there has supported a plan to give "families of color" (everyone but White people) $500.00 a month simply for being the right skin color. People are arguing that since the money is coming from a charity there's no issue, however, I seriously doubt anyone would want a charity giving money ONLY to White people, solely because they have White skin.
graphicconception
Favorite Answer
Yes. We need to stop being divisive and bring all parties black and white, liberal and conservative, men and women together.
Phase 1 is to give all black people a p[ile of money and white people nothing. If that does not strike a blow for unity I don't know what will.
?
i dont think so
?
In the United States this would only be appropriate if we the people of the United States intend to disperse money to those with dark skin and restitution for the slavery committed upon their great-grandparents and then to return them to their native country.
In the Bible the Egyptians who were dark-skinned did not allow the slaves to stay in Egypt after they had given them money and set them free!
If we are to disperse money as a restitution we do not do this part of the way we give the money and we take them back to their native lands and we shall never again permit them here once that is done
Russ in NOVA
I applaud this private enterprise effort to assist low income people. And I acknowledge there is income disparity between white people and "people of color" in general--as White households in Oakland on average make about three times as much annually than black households. But I feel like limiting participation to people of color can be "problematic". At least the money is privately funded (not government funded). Perhaps if the proud boys offered up some donations to fund the same thing for white people it would be hunky dory.
Most of Trumps charities went only to people with White skin.
?
No, but then again I am a real left winger