Understanding the Complexities of Global White Supremacy (Racism) Through The Eyes of an Educated Black Man

"Racial understanding, racial sympathy, is the key to permanent WORLD PEACE." – J.A. Rogers, Sex & Race Vol. 1 (1952)

[A.] SDNY Complaint
[B.] P. Kevin Castel/2nd. Cir.’s Order Compelling Arbitration
[C.] American Arbitration Association Orders
[D.] Motions & Orders of P. Kevin Castel
[E.] 2nd Cir. Motions & Orders
[F.] Motions to the Supreme Court
[G.] Complaints to DDC, Attorney General, etc.
[H.] The Black Man’s Ancient Ruins From Around the World
[I.] Museums From Around the World Proving Original Man Was Black
[J.] Partial Reading List
[K.] Press
[L.] Contact

[H.] The Black Man’s Ancient Ruins From Around the World

Egypt:

Giza Pyramids:

Step Pyramid:

Red Pyramid:

Bent Pyramid:

Mexico:

Teotihuacan:

Chichen Itza:

Share this:

Twitter
Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Search for:

Recent Posts

Snoh Aalegra — “I Want You Around”
“Race discrimination claims are generally thought to be the most difficult employment claim to succeed on…[C]ourts often analyze race cases from an anti-affirmative action mindset, one that views both the persistence of discrimination and the merits of the underlying claims with deep skepticism. This bias is, more than anything else, a way of seeing things, a way of analyzing evidence, drawing inferences and conclusions based on ambiguous or contested evidence. As I have argued previously, our assumptions about the world — about the prevalence of discrimination and its role in explaining events — deeply influences the way in which we identify the causation that is central to establishing a discrimination claim. Moreover, it seems that the general consensus today is that the role discrimination plays in contemporary America has been sharply diminished, and those who take this view are reluctant to find discrimination absent compelling evidence. As a result, courts appear hesitant to draw inferences of racial discrimination based on circumstantial evidence, even though courts have long recognized that race discrimination is generally subtle in form and dependent on circumstantial evidence.”
“The bias the courts bring to the cases varies by the type of case. It is now liberal gospel to deride all discrimination in equal terms, to suggest that no discrimination is permissible, and all reprehensible, and with some exceptions the various federal statutes tend to treat most discrimination in like terms. This has also been true of federal enforcement agencies, which have generally declined to prioritize discrimination claims but instead treat all claims as equally worthy. This is, of course, not true with respect to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long adhered to tiers of scrutiny to distinguish kinds of discrimination based on their origin. Indeed, rather than treating all discrimination alike, it seems significantly more helpful to distinguish among kinds of discrimination, stressing in particular that the bias courts bring to the cases can vary by the nature of the case.”
“The primary reason discrimination cases are so hard to prove has to do with the bias courts bring to their analyses. By the term bias I do not mean that courts hold or express animus toward discrimination cases, though some courts undoubtedly do, but instead I mean that courts approach cases from a particular perspective that reflects a bias against the claims. I should be clear that here I am treating courts not as anonymous or reasoned institutions but as the people they are, and as people, they are unlikely to always be able to shed themselves of their biases. In the last few years, an extensive literature has developed regarding the ways in which bias may stem from unconscious forces to explain how discrimination continues to affect the workplace and why employers might be affected by these biases despite their best efforts. This literature, however, has focused almost exclusively on employers and individual actors. In this essay I want to extend that analysis to the courts, for although some courts are able to separate themselves from their own personal perspectives, most courts are not, and those biases strongly influence how courts decide particular cases especially in the discrimination context. At the same time, it is important to note that not all the bias I will discuss stems from unconscious forces, but rather although it may be manifested in subtle ways, it often arises from conscious beliefs-the kind of beliefs someone might admit at a party after having one too many drinks but that is otherwise suppressed because it falls outside what is seen as the mainstream even though it, in fact, may mirror the norm.”
“It seems clear that courts are hostile to employment discrimination cases, and I think the reason has to do not just with the perception that the cases are too easy to bring but also that most are lacking merit. Indeed, the bias courts bring to their adjudicative process likely influences the general misperception that cases are easy to win, and these two issues are inevitably closely linked.”

Archives

Categories

Uncategorized

Meta

Register
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Post to

Cancel

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

%d bloggers like this: