Following the US civil war, vast swathes of former plantation land were redistributed to former slaves. Lincoln spoke of forty acres and a mule for every slave. That objective was sabotaged and never acheived, but quite a bit of land did get redistributed to former slaves who then farmed that land for generations.

However, since that day, almost year or year, the total percentage of black-owned farmland in the USA has been decreasing. The peak of this downward trend was actually during the depression of the 1930s when many of these farmers had fallen so deeply into debt that the banks reposessed their land. The winners being big farming coroporations. You could argue, this was because black famers were maybe on average not as well informed about fianancial matters as their white counterparts, and were cheated by the banks. It could also be they were not as well educated about farming and didn't run their farms as efficiently as they could have done. Definitely there is some truth there. It was also the period of the dust bowl when farming in the Deep South was not an attractive proposition for anybody. But this was also the period that many blacks voluntarily sold their farms for cash-in-hand and moved up north to seek employment in the big cities, lured by the promise of orderly employment and an orderely paycheck. Another move that didn't turn out in their favour. It is arguably better to be poor on your own farm than to be poor in a gang-ridden city ghetto.

So it is not the ability to own land that was the problem here, but an educational and awareness issue as well as the lure of a quick fix to their problems, which turned out to be the opposite.

Are we not at risk of repeating that with more of those quick-fix ideas?

Furthermore there is no discussion, as someone else mentioned, this is all happening so fast. No one is asked there opinion, they are just acting without any sort of process

I thought about this...To forbid/censor is to stigmatize or to taboo. You can't ban bad humor. I liked Little Britain because it was such obvious bad humor that nobody could, imho, get seriously offended. If you start catering to the really hightened sensitivities, you start creating a stigma and taboos. It is like with quota hires, it hurts people more than it helps them, in a long term.

What is it going to be next, Monty Python? I really like British shows/ads exactly for that obvious cringe and ridiculousness factor, it is so inappropriate and they are so inclusive in who they rip on..Maybe shows should just die of low ratings and not of a TV channel virtue signalling.

Maybe they did have low ratings, I don't know.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

What better time than a crisis to push through your agenda? Simple solutions to complex questions, and nobody there to challenge them. The dream of populist agitators.

I never really warmed to Little Britain. I didn't dislike it either by I thought it was about average within the broader context of all British comedy. To me it never acheived the exceptional timeless coolness of say, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Allo Allo, and maybe two or three other series. To me it was a case of a couple of good ideas being done to death by too much recycling. And some of the jokes and gags aged badly and aren't really funny any more today.

The cringe factor is acheived precisely because British culture is totally riddled with taboos, things that are not actually forbidden but that you just know you shouldn't do or say, and you can create endless material for laughs if you cross and blur lines. You find plenty of this in Shakespeare even.

Political correctness is all about creating additional taboos and is thus an open invitation for jokers to score points, often in poor taste.

It wasn't the best but still a bit lighter than Shakespeare.

I wonder what new politically incorrect themes will pop up.

Equality means that we should be able to poke fun, call names, dress up as, laugh at everybody equally .. even in bad taste.

It's a sad day when a comedy show is pulled for black facing and the episodes slagging the disabled, gays, fatties, elderly etc etc are still perfectly acceptable.

It's not equality.. it's box ticking.. protecting one group because they have the loudest voice. It doesn't solve anything..

If we removed all comedies taking the mick out of the irish, then nobody could take the mick out of them in the future.

Hey don't forget the Scottish .,.

Racist!

Taking the jocks out could lead to an overreaction and remove a lot of wardrobe based comedy if misapplied.

This is genuinely incredible.

Blaming the victims of slavery for their future dire straits.

Do you think when slavery ended, a magic wand was waved and all black people could then do everything white people could?

Why didn't Rosa Parks just sit down and shut up, eh?

I must have missed the part where Rosa Parks or her parents were slaves. Heavily affected by racial segregation and discriminatory laws yes, but she wasn't a slave.

No magic wand existed, what did exist afterwards were the laws that she protested against.

I think you've failed to do a bit of joined up thinking there.

I think I might have to give this specific thread a wide berth from now on.
There are a few too many people who want to blame black people solely for their current predicament, presumably because introspection is a bit too painful.

You keep on doing that, but a change is gonna come.

So context means nothing to you. Pathetic is the only word that comes to mind.

Fine if you start from a position of equality.... but you don't

I mention that she protested against the problems of her time. Maybe if people spent more time trying to solve the problems of today instead of attempting to proportion blame for what happened in the past progress could be made.

Thank you for your addition to the conversation, pointless is all that comes to mind.

We'll never get to that point of course .. So much is already taboo, it'll never come back.

It would be a fool who thought the problems of today were unrelated to the actions of the past.

When you need to put out a fire, do you ask who built the house?

I suppose it might be useful to know if there was any incendiary or explosive materials that could go off if treated poorly.

Yours is a pretty poor analogy, but i suspect you knew that.