"that's interesting.... justifying using racism and sexism to progress to a state of equality"

It's not racist or sexist to point out that white men have held power in America and have legislated on their own behalf. It's a verifiable fact. Non-whites couldn't vote nationally for nearly the first 100 years. Women couldn't vote until the early 1900s. Non-white voting was supressed in certain parts of the country up to and after the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The FHA directed more housing dollars into white neighborhoods than it did to black neighborhoods. 

These things happened. Learning about them, acknowledging them, and examining the impact they still have today isn't racism. 

I appreciate the conversation but I feel like at this point, you're arguing against an SJW strawman and it's probably not productive for me to stick up for them.

Good stuff though.

Good. Brings be great joy to see the demise of unworthy things.

are we past the year 2000 now or did we take a time machine back to the 1900s?

well if not why are we going back to the 1900s to justify absurd positions now?

" you're arguing against an SJW strawman"

ok.. but talking about the early 1900s to justify racism and sexism perpetuated by people claiming to fight racism and sexism isn't a strawman? ok

I'm going back to the 1900s and even earlier to justify the point that the United States was made in the image of white men. The passage of the 19th ammendment didn't undo the civilization that was built in the 100 preceding years.  

The passage of Voting Rights Act of 1965 didn't give blacks and other minorities the 189 years of agency that they missed out on when it came to the direction of the country. 

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 didn't go back and restore the wealth accumulation missed out on by black families because of fundamentally unfair lending practices.

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 didn't go back and restore lost years for people who languished in jail due racial bias in the judiciary. 

Again, good talk, but honestly I'm putting more into this conversation than I'm getting out of it. 

I am in one right now in Canada, and I'll tell you that the majority of the people are capitalists that support free market economies, so it's not the leftist place that so many people stereotype universities to be.

Several years out of college now. What's up?

Fully agreed.

Yeah, the liberals who think that capitalism can be reformed in a way that helps everyone are going to have to face the harsh truth.

Thanks. I personally prefer looking at and reading about orthodox Marxism, though. There's something about it that gives me a sense of comfort, though it's really a mental association of unsavory types with other sorts.

I want to point to the italicised, though. I have to admit that when I looked that the current state of the church, this part sort of leaked into my post, so I apologise. It's extremely impressive, however, to note just how much these elements have seeped into the church (look up liberation theology, or even just information on the current Pope).

However, do you agree with me that what I stated was logically sound? I suppose that's what I really want to know here.

By the way, thanks for piling on my reading list. Always happy to see it grow, although restarting progress on actually clearing it is going to become more Herculean.

If we're going that route, 100 million is way less than the hundreds of millions by capitalist countries. Also, Stalinism and Maoism are not Marxism, they are separate ideologies (for example, Stalin's "socialism in one country" is not part of Marxist ideology).