# data[].attributes.body
Social media does indeed connect everyone however, its not that it decreases the sociality of individuals, I think it just decreases the value of face-to-face interactions.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that people believe racism is a good thing, usually the reason why people are rascist ultimately depends on environmental and domestic factors. People are most influenced by what they see or are taught when growing up, thus impacting their morality and societal views.

# data[].attributes.body
I learned that it was for a victory against the French during the war they had. I also learned that it is celebrated more in the United States then Mexico itself and that it's more then just drinking, eating, or celebrating mexicos culture. It's celebrating there victory and seemed impossible for them to win at the time

# data[].attributes.body
Social media does have a tendency to harm us when it comes to personal face to face interaction. The things you are willing to say to people online or in text are different than the things one might say in person. Social media is a great way to connect if used wisely and in addition to personal contact.

# data[].attributes.body
There isn't a good answer for that question . Some people may take there anger out on pets the same way they take there anger out on humans but they know there isn't much punishment when they beat an animal

# data[].attributes.body
People hurt animals because they know that they are in control. When you tell a dog to stop barking and the dog don't then we tend to hit the dog to make it be quite. We know when we fight or kills humans it always have to be a different person cause we know sooner or later we are going to get caught up. When we abuse the dogs we know most people is not going to car about a dogs life more than a humans life.

# data[].attributes.body
yes the purpose of social media is for the people to connect and share with others but most people use to create rumors about others and to cause drama and instead of using it in a good way to socialize they use it in athe bad way

# data[].attributes.body
Social media makes us less social because the human interaction is taken out. It becomes hard for someone to be social when they just talk to people through text. Yes, social media does give us the access to numerous amounts of people at our fingertips, but the downfall is we are lacking necessary social skills. For someone who is constantly on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. they are not talking to people face to face. Social skills are needed in many fields of work. A sales rep for example has to go around and be sell products. He/she should be a good people person. They need to be able to strike up a conversation with anyone. The way social media has taken over our society it seems as if people are losing their ability to communicate with others.

# data[].attributes.body
Social Media does connect people. My friend is talking to upcoming freshmen from her college right now. I have started mulitple conversation on Twitter and Facebook. People expect kids to have more face to face conversation instead of viral ones. People can know everything they want to know about someone before they even meet you officially.

# data[].attributes.body
Social media: why dose social media make us not so social if the whole purpose of it is to connect and share with others?

# data[].attributes.body
Racism: why do some people believe it is a good thing if it hurts the life of others?

# data[].attributes.body
My question concerns animal cruelty. Why do people do it??? It's like hurting a human and making them suffer when they deserve peace and love

# data[].attributes.body
Most of the people in my group agree with each other and how racism can be stopped if everyone cared for each other. One member said " there's always gunna be a person that thinks there on top". I agree with this and no matter what this just how things are going to be. Even so that shouldn't stop us from accomplish our goals. Whoever thinks there on top should get a reality check. People are mad equal, we alll live, we all die. No ones special.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You remember, forever and forever, that moment when you first discover the cruelties and injustices of the world, and having been ill-prepared for them, your heart breaks open.

I mean really discover them, and for yourself; not because someone else told you to see the elephant standing, gigantic and unrelenting in the middle of your room, but because you saw him, and now you know he's there, and will never go away until you attack him, and with a vengeance.

Saturday night, and I am writing it down so that I will not forget -- because I already know she will not -- my oldest daughter, who attained the age of 12 only eleven days ago, became an American. Not in the legal sense. She was already that, born here, and -- as a white child in a nation set up for people just like her -- fully entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof, without much question or drama. But now she is American in the fullest and most horrible sense of that word, by which I mean she has been truly introduced to the workings of the system of which she is both a part, and, at the same time, merely an inheritor. A system that fails -- with a near-unanimity almost incomprehensible to behold -- to render justice to black peoples, the family of Trayvon Martin being only the latest battered by the machinations of American justice, but with all certainty not the last.

To watch her crumble, eyes swollen with tears too salty, too voluminous for her daddy to wipe away? Well now that is but the latest of my heartbreaks; to have to hold her, and tell her that everything will be OK, and to hear her respond, "No it won't be!" Because see, even though she learned Saturday night about injustice and even more than she knew before about the racial fault lines that divide her nation, she is still a bit too young to fully comprehend the notion of the marathon, as opposed to the sprint; to understand that this is a very long race, indeed that even 26.2 miles is but a crawl in the long distance struggle for justice. And that if she is as bothered by what she sees as it appears, well now she will have to put on some incredibly strong running shoes, because this, my dear, is the work.

This is why daddy does what he does. Now you know.

And yes, I am fully aware that there are still those who would admonish me for even suggesting this case was about race. Not just the defenders of George Zimmerman, with whom I shall deal in a moment, but even the state, whose prosecutors de-racialized this case to a point that frankly was as troubling as anything the defense tried to do. Maybe more. I mean, the defense's job is to represent their client, and I cannot fault them for having done so successfully. But the prosecution's job is to make it clear to the jury what the defendant did and preferably why he did it. By agreeing to a fundamentally colorblind, "this isn't about race," narrative, they gave away the best part of their arsenal before the war had really started.

Because anyone who still believes that this case had nothing to do with race -- or worse, that it was simply a tragedy, the racial meaning of which was concocted by those whom they love to term "race hustlers" -- are suffering from a delusion so profound as to call into question their capacities for rational thought. And yet still, let us try to reason with them for a second, as if they were capable of hearing it. Let's do that for the sake of rational thought itself, as a thing we still believe in; and for our country, which some of us still believe -- against all evidence -- is capable of doing justice and living up to its promises. In short, let's give this one more shot.

Those who deny the racial angle to the killing of Trayvon Martin can only do so by a willful ignorance, a carefully cultivated denial of every logical, obvious piece of evidence before them, and by erasing from their minds -- if indeed they ever had anything in there to erase -- the entire history of American criminal justice, the criminal suspicion regularly attached to black men, and the inevitable results whenever black men pay for these suspicions with their lives. They must choose to leave the dots unconnected between, for instance, Martin on the one hand, and then on the other, Amadou Diallo or Sean Bell or Patrick Dorismond, or any of a number of other black men whose names -- were I to list them -- would take up page after page, and whose names wouldn't mean shit to most white people even if I did list them, and that is the problem.

Oh sure, I've heard it all before. George Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon Martin because Martin was black; he followed him because he thought he might be a criminal. Yes precious, I get that. But what you don't get -- and by not getting it while still managing to somehow hold down a job and feedyourself, scare the shit out of me -- is far more important. Namely, if the presumption of criminality that Zimmerman attached to Martin was so attached because the latter was black -- and would not have been similarly attached to him had he been white -- then the charge of racial bias and profiling is entirely appropriate.

And surely we cannot deny that the presumption of criminality was dependent on this dead child's race can we? Before you answer, please note that even the defense did not deny this. Indeed, Zimmerman's attorneys acknowledged in court that their client's concerns about Martin were connected directly to the fact that previous break-ins in the neighborhood had been committed by young black males.

This is why it matters that George Zimmerman justified his following of Martin because as he put it, "these fucking punks" always get away. In other words, Zimmerman saw Martin as just another "fucking punk" up to no good, similar to those who had committed previous break-ins in the community. But why? What behavior did Martin display that would have suggested he was criminally inclined? Zimmerman's team could produce nothing to indicate anything particularly suspicious about Martin's actions that night. According to Zimmerman, Martin was walking in the rain, "looking around," or "looking around at the houses." But not looking in windows, or jiggling doorknobs or porch screens, or anything that might have suggested a possible burglar. At no point was any evidence presented by the defense to justify their client's suspicions. All we know is that Zimmerman saw Martin and concluded that he was just like those other criminals. And to the extent there was nothing in Martin's actions -- talking on the telephone and walking slowly home from the store -- that would have indicated he was another of those "fucking punks," the only possible explanation as to why George Zimmerman would have seen him that way is because Martin, as a young black male was presumed to be a likely criminal, and for no other reason, ultimately, but color.

Which is to say, Trayvon Martin is dead because he is black and because George Zimmerman can't differentiate -- and didn't see the need to -- between criminal and non-criminal black people. Which is to say, George Zimmerman is a racist. Because if you cannot differentiate between black criminals and just plain kids, and don't even see the need to try, apparently, you are a racist. I don't care what your Peruvian mother says, or her white husband who married the Peruvian mother, or your brother, or your black friends, or the black girl you took to prom, or the black kids you mentored. If you see a black child and assume "criminal," despite no behavioral evidence at all to suggest such a conclusion, you are a racist. No exceptions. That goes for George Zimmerman and for anyone reading this.

And here's the thing: even in the evidentiary light most favorable to George Zimmerman this would remain true. Because even if we believe, as the jury did, that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, there can be no question that were it not for George Zimmerman's unfounded and racially-biased suspicions that evening, Trayvon Martin would be alive, and Zimmerman would be an entirely anonymous, pathetic wanna-be lawman, about whom no one would much care. It was he who initiated the drama that night. And even if you believe that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman after being followed by him, that doesn't change.

But apparently that moral and existential truth matters little to this jury or to the white reactionaries so quick to praise their decision. To them, the fact that Martin might well have had reason to fear Zimmerman that night, might have thought he was standing his ground, confronted by someone who himself was "up to no good" is irrelevant. They are saying that black people who fight back against someone they think is creepy and who is following them, and might intend to harm them, are more responsible for their deaths than those who ultimately kill them. What they have said, and make no mistake about it, is that any white person who wants to kill a black person can follow one, confront them, maybe even provoke them; and as soon as that black person perhaps takes a swing at them, or lunges at them, the white pursuer can pull their weapon, fire, and reasonably assume that they will get away with this act. I can start drama, and if you respond to the drama I created, you are to blame, not me.

But we know, if we are remotely awake, that this same logic would never be used to protect a black person accused of such an act. Let's travel back to 1984 shall we, and hypothetically apply this logic to the Bernhard Goetz case in a little thought experiment so as to illustrate the point.

Goetz, as you'll recall, was the white man who, afraid of young black men because he had been previously mugged, decided to shoot several such youth on a subway. They had not threatened him. They had asked him for money, and apparently teased him a bit. But at no point did they threaten him. Nonetheless, he drew his weapon and fired several rounds into them, even (according to his own initial account, later recanted), shooting a second time at one of the young men, after saying, "You don't look so bad, here, have another."

Goetz, predictably, was seen as a hero by the majority of the nation's whites, if polls and anecdotal evidence are to be believed. He was a Dirty Harry-like vigilante, fighting back against crime, and more to the point, black crime. Ultimately he too would successfully plead self-defense and face conviction only on a minor weapons charge.

But let us pretend for a second that after Goetz pulled his weapon and began to fire at the young men on that subway, one of them had perhaps pulled his own firearm. Now as it turns out none of the boys had one, but let's just pretend. And let's say that one of them pulled a weapon precisely because, after all, he and his friends were being fired upon and so, fearing for his life, he opted to defend himself against this deranged gunman. And let's pretend that the young man managed to hit Goetz, perhaps paralyzing him as Goetz did, in fact, to one of his victims. Does anyone seriously believe that that young black man would have been able to press a successful self-defense claim in court the way Goetz ultimately did? Or in the court of white public opinion the way Zimmerman has? If you would answer yes to this question you are either engaged in an act of self-delusion so profound as to defy imagination, or you are so deeply committed to fooling others as to make you truly dangerous.

But we are not fooled.

We don't even have to travel back thirty years to the Goetz case to make the point, in fact. We can stay here, with this case. If everything about that night in Sanford had been the same, but Martin, fearing this stranger following him -- the latter not identifying himself at any point as Neighborhood Watch -- had pulled a weapon and shot George Zimmerman out of a genuine fear that he was going to be harmed (and even if Zimmerman had confronted him in a way so as to make that fear more than speculative), would the claim of self-defense have rung true for those who are so convinced by it in this case? Would this jury have likely concluded that Trayvon had had a right to defend himself against the perceived violent intentions of George Zimmerman?

Oh, and would it have taken so long for Martin to be arrested in the first place, had he been the shooter? Would he have been granted bail? Would he have been given the benefit of the doubt the way Zimmerman was by virtually every white conservative in America of note? And remember, those white folks were rushing to proclaim the shooting of Martin justified even before there had been any claim made by Zimmerman that Trayvon had attacked him. Before anyone had heard Zimmerman's version of the story, much of white America, and virtually its entire right flank had already decided that Martin must have been up to no good because he wore a hoodie (in the rain, imagine), and was tall (actually according to the coroner he was 5'11″ not 6'2″ or 6'4″ as some have claimed), and that because of those previous break-ins, Zimmerman had every right to confront him.

No, Martin-as-shooter would never have benefitted from these public pronouncements of innocence the way Zimmerman did.

Because apparently black people don't have a right to defend themselves. Which is why Marissa Alexander, a woman who had suffered violence at the hands of her husband (by his own admission in fact), was recently sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a warning shot into a wall when she felt he was about to yet again harm her.

And so it continues. Year after year and case after case it continues, with black life viewed as expendable in the service of white fear, with black males in particular (but many a black female as well and plenty of Latino folk too) marked as problems to be solved, rather than as children to be nurtured. And tonight, their parents will hold them and try to assure them that everything is going to be OK, even as they will have to worry again tomorrow that their black or brown child may represent the physical embodiment of white anxiety, and pay the ultimate price for that fact, either at the hands of a random loser with a law enforcement jones, or an actual cop doing the bidding of the state. In short, they will hold their children and lie to them, at least a little -- and to themselves -- because who doesn't want their child to believe that everything will be alright?

But in calmer moments these parents of color will also tell their children the truth. That in fact everything is not going to be OK, unless we make it so. That justice is not an act of wish fulfillment but the product of resistance. Because black parents know these things like they know their names, and as a matter of survival they make sure their children know them too.

And if their children have to know them, then mine must know them as well.

And now they do.

If their children are to be allowed no innocence free from these concerns, then so too must mine sacrifice some of their naiveté upon the altar of truth.

And now they have.

So to the keepers of white supremacy, I should offer this final word. You can think of it as a word of caution. My oldest daughter knows who you are and saw what you did. You have made a new enemy. One day, you might wish you hadn't.
First published at TimWise.org.
Tim Wise is author of many books, including his most recent, Dear White America: Letter to a New Minority published by City Lights. Cornel West calls Wise "A vanilla brother in the tradition of (antiracism and antislavery fighter) John Brown."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racism, Injustice and Explaining America to My Daughter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You remember, forever and forever, that moment when you first discover the cruelties and injustices of the world, and having been ill-prepared for them, your heart breaks open.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This part of the globalissues.org web site looks into the issue of racism. In some places around the world, racial hatred is increasing. Many modern conflicts also have some roots in ethnicity.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this quote because of the author and its meaning. Like Nelson said, nobody is born a racist. It is thought by what people see or hear from others or even movies. I believe it is possible to change a person mind about this topic. Teach them to love one another and that just because there skin is different doesn't mean there bad or evil. Imgine if some one were to hate on your race (some one out there dose) wouldn't you feel bad or worthless? Truth is your not, nobody is.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this picture because it shows a white hand united with a black hand. No gender is shown. This allows people to understand that no matter what the race or gender, people should be equal and unit with each other. There's nothing in the world we as people can't do if we all come as one. Come together and stop racism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Racial profiling refers to law enforcement officers or agencies where a key factor in whether to take action, such as making a stop or arrest, is mainly based on race, ethnicity or national origin, rather than information and evidence. The practice is controversial, and there is some data to suggest that it is ineffective in controlling crime.

In 1942, during World War II following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. Attorney General Warren ordered that local authorities should apply the Alien Land Law against Japanese landowners in California in order to prevent further attacks. Britain had used similar legislation from 1940, interning large numbers of Germans, including many Jewish refugees from the Nazi regime, in a specially built camp on the Isle of Man in an effort to deter subversion and identify "fifth columnists."

In the United States, racial profiling was used in the 1990s during a clampdown on the illegal drugs trade in police stop-and-searches, provoking national debate. The issue was referred to as "driving while black," or "driving while brown." The police targeted a larger number of street arrests and established racial-based practices. Law enforcement officers have justified unreasonable vehicle searches with the presumption that minorities, most of which people of color, are more likely to transport contraband or drugs.

The resulting statistics are inconclusive as to the effectiveness of this strategy, as disproportionate searches tend to give disproportionate results. More minority-based searches by the police will most likely lead to more arrests among the targeted groups. Critics have argued against police practices to stop and search vehicles based on the race and national origin of drivers or passengers, defining them as a form of discrimination. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLE) launched a campaign against racial profiling, aimed at tackling "law enforcement and private security practices that disproportionately target people of color for investigation and enforcement."

Racial profiling is also challenged by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees a person's civil rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Disputes also focus on the proper application of the 14th Amendment, which entails a clause on the equal protection of citizens. A Gallup survey conducted in 1999 in the United States showed that more than half of those polled recognized certain police practices as racial profiling. More than 80 percent of those polled said they disagree with such practices.

In the days after "9/11," the U.S .Congress passed the USA Patriotic Act, reforming a large number of provisions in federal criminal procedure and laws on foreign intelligence surveillance. The reforms facilitated the access of federal investigators to all kinds of documentary and electronic evidence, using wiretaps and all necessary data from Internet providers and communication companies. Furthermore, Section 412 of the Patriot Act allows the U.S. Attorney General to detain persons of foreign origin considered a threat to national security for up to seven days without charge. Under the provisions of the Act, the Attorney General needs to demonstrate only "reasonable grounds to believe," that the detainee will commit espionage, sabotage or terrorist attack, try to overthrow the government, or in another way endanger the national security. The USA Patriot Act also envisages that a person detained for violating the rules on entry into the United States, who cannot be repatriated, may remain under detention in the United States for an indefinite period without criminal charges against him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Racial profiling refers to law enforcement officers or agencies where a key factor in whether to take action, such as making a stop or arrest, is mainly based on race, ethnicity or national origin, rather than information and evidence. The practice is controversial, and there is some data to suggest that it is ineffective in controlling crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC - Ethics - Slavery: Attempts to justify slavery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A number of arguments have been put forward to try and justify slavery. None of them would find much favour today, but at various times in history many people found some of these arguments entirely reasonable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions ranging from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and even violent assault.

When people bothered to give reasons for opposing the proposed abolition, they advanced various ideas. Here are ten such ideas I have encountered in my reading.

1. Slavery is natural. People differ, and we must expect that those who are superior in a certain way-for example, in intelligence, morality, knowledge, technological prowess, or capacity for fighting-will make themselves the masters of those who are inferior in this regard. Abraham Lincoln expressed this idea in one of his famous 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas: "[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

2. Slavery has always existed. This reason exemplifies the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). Nevertheless, it often persuaded people, especially those of conservative bent. Even nonconservatives might give it weight on the quasi-Hayekian ground that although we do not understand why a social institution persists, its persistence may nonetheless be well grounded in a logic we have yet to understand.

3. Every society on earth has slavery. The unspoken corollary is that every society must have slavery. The pervasiveness of an institution seems to many people to constitute compelling proof of its necessity. Perhaps, as one variant maintains, every society has slavery because certain kinds of work are so difficult or degrading that no free person will do them, and therefore unless we have slaves to do these jobs, they will not get done. Someone, as the saying went in the Old South, has to be the mud sill, and free people will not tolerate serving in this capacity.

4. The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves. This idea was popular in the United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries among people, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who regarded slavery as morally reprehensible yet continued to hold slaves and to obtain personal services from them and income from the products these "servants" (as they preferred to call them) were compelled to produce. It would be cruel to set free people who would then, at best, fall into destitution and suffering.

5. Without masters, the slaves will die off. This idea is the preceding one pushed to its extreme. Even after slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865, many people continued to voice this idea. Northern journalists traveling in the South immediately after the war reported that, indeed, the blacks were in the process of becoming extinct because of their high death rate, low birth rate, and miserable economic condition. Sad but true, some observers declared, the freed people really were too incompetent, lazy, or immoral to behave in ways consistent with their own group survival. (See my 1977 book Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the American Economy, 1865-1914.)

6. Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves. This argument became popular in the South in the decades before the War Between the States. Its leading exponent was the proslavery writer George Fitzhugh, whose book titles speak for themselves: Sociology for the South, or, the Failure of Free Society (1854) and Cannibals All!, or, Slaves Without Masters (1857). Fitzhugh seems to have taken many of his ideas from the reactionary, racist, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle. The expression "wage slave" still echoes this antebellum outlook. True to his sociological theories, Fitzhugh wanted to extend slavery in the United States to working-class white people, for their own good!

7. Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils. In the United States many people assumed that the slaveholders would never permit the termination of the slave system without an all-out fight to preserve it. Sure enough, when the Confederacy and the Union went to war-set aside that the immediate issue was not the abolition of slavery, but the secession of eleven Southern states-great bloodshed and other evils did ensue. These tragic events seemed, in many people's minds, to validate the reason they had given for opposing abolition. (They evidently overlooked that, except in Haiti, slavery was abolished everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere without large-scale violence.)

8. Without slavery the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem. Preservation of social order therefore rules out the abolition of slavery. Southerners lived in dread of slave uprisings. Northerners in the mid-nineteenth century found the situation in their own region already sufficiently intolerable, owing to the massive influx of drunken, brawling Irishmen into the country in the 1840s and 1850s. Throwing free blacks, whom the Irish generally disliked, into the mix would well-nigh guarantee social chaos.

9. Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal. Serious people cannot afford to waste their time considering such farfetched ideas.

10. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise.

At one time, countless people found one or more of the foregoing reasons adequate grounds on which to oppose the abolition of slavery. Yet in retrospect, these reasons seem shabby-more rationalizations than reasons.

Today these reasons or very similar ones are used by opponents of a different form of abolitionism: the proposal that government as we know it-monopolistic, individually nonconsensual rule by an armed group that demands obedience and payment of taxes-be abolished. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether the foregoing reasons are more compelling in this regard than they were in regard to the proposed abolition of slavery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ten Reasons Not to Abolish Slavery | Robert Higgs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it.

# data[].attributes.body
Who: this invlolves every race in the world. theres some one out there that hates your race.

What: racism is affecting all types of people in all types of ways. in america the most targeted group of people to hate on is blacks or Muslims.

When: no real date for when it really started but it continues to this day

Where: all around the world

Why: People suffer from racism to this day and its nothing but bad for people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Racism in the United States has been widespread since the colonial era. Legally or socially sanctioned privileges and rights were given to white Americans but denied to all other races. European Americans (particularly the affluent white Anglo-Saxon Protestants) were granted exclusive privileges in matters of education, immigration, voting rights, citizenship, land acquisition, and criminal procedure over periods of time extending from the 17th century to the 1960s.