Posts tagged with "whites only"

Return to the Land: A Troubling Echo in American Culture

A self-described “whites-only” community, Return to the Land (RTTL), founded by a far-right group, is actively planning expansion, raising significant concerns across America. This development, rooted in exclusionary ideologies, brings to the forefront critical questions about American values, civil rights, and the ongoing struggle for a truly inclusive society.

Need to Know: What is RTTL?

RTTL describes itself as a private member association (PMA) that vets applicants based on “traditional views and European ancestry.” Non-white individuals, Jews, and LGBTQ+ individuals are explicitly unwelcome. Their first community opened in northern Arkansas in 2023, encompassing 160 acres with its own community center and school, housing 40 inhabitants. A second Arkansas community opened in January 2025.

Co-founder Eric Orwoll openly states the group’s ambition to establish “whites-only” communities in all 50 states, aiming to build a “white nation.” He argues that white Americans should have the right to live among “like-minded people” due to perceived demographic changes and that RTTL is exempt from civil rights legislation due to its PMA status. Orwoll has also expressed controversial views on Adolf Hitler, suggesting a “one-sided” mainstream opinion influenced by “World War II propaganda.”

Critics, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Missouri Democratic officials, the NAACP, and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, universally condemn RTTL as racist and anti-Semitic. They argue that RTTL’s actions attempt to revive “discredited and reprehensible forms of segregation” and should be illegal under federal and state civil rights laws, including the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

A Brief Historical Overview of “Whites Only” Places in America

The concept of “whites only” places and establishments has a deeply troubling history in the United States, primarily associated with the era of racial segregation. Following the end of Reconstruction in the late 1870s, many Southern states enacted “Jim Crow” laws, a system of legal segregation that enforced white supremacy and systematically denied African Americans their civil rights.

These laws mandated the separation of races in almost all aspects of public life. “Whites only” signs were commonplace in restaurants, bathrooms, water fountains, public parks, beaches, swimming pools, and even telephone booths. African Americans were forced to use separate entrances to businesses and doctor’s offices, sit in separate waiting rooms, and were often restricted to designated areas in theaters and other public venues. 

The “separate but equal” doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, provided a legal basis for segregation, although the facilities provided for African Americans were consistently inferior. This system extended to schools, hospitals, prisons, and libraries, which were underfunded and lacked the resources of their white counterparts.

Beyond the South, discriminatory practices also existed. During the Great Migration, African Americans who moved to the North and Northeast often encountered similar forms of discrimination and segregation in housing and schools. Even after World War II, “Whites Only” signs could still be found in some Northern businesses.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, through protests, sit-ins, and legal challenges, played a crucial role in dismantling the Jim Crow system. Landmark legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, outlawed racial segregation and discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and housing. The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) declared that “separate but equal” in public education was unconstitutional.

While significant progress has been made in overcoming legal segregation, the legacy of “whites only” places and the ideologies behind them continue to have an impact on American society. The emergence of groups like RTTL serves as a stark reminder of this history and the ongoing need to address systemic inequalities and discriminatory practices.

Key Takeaways:

  • Explicit Exclusion: RTTL’s stated mission is to create racially and ethnically exclusive communities, directly barring non-white individuals, Jews, and LGBTQ+ people.
  • Expansionist Ambitions: The group openly seeks to establish a network of such communities across the entire United States.
  • Legal Scrutiny: While RTTL claims exemption as a private member association, legal experts and officials are challenging this interpretation, citing civil rights and fair housing laws.
  • Historical Echoes: The group’s ideology and aspirations evoke painful memories of historical segregation and discriminatory practices in the U.S., such as those seen in New Deal-era housing policies like redlining, which explicitly fostered “whites-only” suburbs and contributed to lasting wealth disparities. The history of “whites only” places under Jim Crow laws provides crucial context for understanding the concerns raised by RTTL’s actions.
  • Controversial Leadership Views: Orwoll’s statements regarding historical figures like Hitler further underscore the troubling nature of the group’s underlying philosophy.

New Deal-era housing policies significantly contributed to the historical context of “whites-only” communities through practices like redlining and explicit race restrictions in federal lending guidelines.

Specifically:

  • Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Rules: The FHA, established during the New Deal, recommended policies to “preserve the value of newly constructed subdivisions” by keeping Black homebuyers from living there. Their lending manuals even suggested “Prohibition of the occupancy of residences except by the race for which they are intended.” This actively promoted and solidified racial segregation in housing.
  • Redlining: New Deal agencies created color-coded maps of communities, with “red” areas designating neighborhoods with a majority of Black residents as “too risky to insure mortgages.” This practice, known as redlining, effectively cut off Black buyers from affordable borrowing and prevented them from owning homes in many areas, steering them towards specific, often underserved, neighborhoods.
  • Creation of “Whites-Only” Suburbs: These policies directly fostered the development of “whites-only” suburbs. For instance, the Ladera neighborhood in California’s Silicon Valley, built in the 1950s, had property deeds with explicit racist restrictions stating that only white people were allowed to live there, unless they were servants. This demonstrates how federal policies, combined with private discrimination, led to the creation of segregated communities.
  • Impact on Wealth Gap: The exclusion of Black Americans from homeownership in these government-backed programs significantly contributed to the lasting wealth gap between white and Black Americans, as homeownership has historically been a primary means of building intergenerational wealth.

In essence, New Deal housing policies, while expanding government capacities and providing economic rights, did so in a deeply discriminatory way, intentionally creating and reinforcing “whites-only” residential areas and laying a foundation for systemic racial inequality in housing that continues to impact society today.

Implications for American Culture, Society, Civil and Human Rights:

The emergence and expansion of groups like RTTL strike at the very heart of American ideals.

For American Culture and Society: Such movements threaten the fabric of a diverse and pluralistic society. They promote division, foster animosity, and undermine the ongoing effort to build a nation where all individuals are valued and have the opportunity to thrive. The pursuit of “white-only” enclaves stands in stark contrast to the cultural melting pot that America often prides itself on, even with its historical imperfections. It signals a retreat into isolationism based on racial purity, a dangerous path that has led to societal breakdown in other historical contexts.

For Civil Rights and Human Rights: RTTL’s practices directly challenge fundamental civil and human rights principles enshrined in American law and international declarations. The right to equal opportunity, freedom from discrimination, and the pursuit of happiness are denied based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. While the First Amendment protects freedom of association, it does not grant the right to discriminate in ways that violate anti-discrimination laws designed to protect vulnerable groups and ensure equal access to housing and other necessities. The ADL and NAACP’s concerns about segregation are well-founded, as RTTL’s model echoes the Jim Crow era, which the nation fought to dismantle.

Alignment with National Principles:

The actions and aspirations of RTTL fundamentally misalign with the core principles of the United States.

  • “All Men Are Created Equal”: The Declaration of Independence asserts that all individuals are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights. RTTL’s exclusionary practices directly contradict this foundational tenet by asserting a hierarchy based on race and ancestry.
  • Equal Protection Under the Law: The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause mandates that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. While RTTL claims to be a private association, their expansive aims and the nature of their discriminatory practices raise serious questions about their adherence to this principle, especially if their activities extend into areas typically regulated by public accommodation or housing laws.
  • A More Perfect Union: The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution speaks of forming “a more perfect Union,” establishing justice, and promoting the general welfare. Segregation and discrimination, as practiced by RTTL, demonstrably prevent the formation of a more perfect union and instead promote injustice and social discord.
  • The American Dream: The traditional “American Dream” often includes the idea of upward mobility and the opportunity for anyone, regardless of background, to achieve success. RTTL’s vision, by restricting access and opportunity based on race, undermines this ideal, creating artificial barriers and perpetuating historical inequalities.

The rise of “whites-only” communities like RTTL is a stark reminder that the fight for equality and inclusion in America is ongoing. While proponents argue for freedom of association, the nation’s legal and moral framework, forged through centuries of struggle for civil rights, stands firmly against such discriminatory practices. American culture and society must remain vigilant in upholding the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity for all.

The Legacy of Baconsfield Park: A Stark Reminder of Segregation and Inequality

Today, January 26, marks the anniversary of a Supreme Court decision that upheld the closure of Baconsfield Park in Macon, Georgia, rather than integrate it. This decision, Evans v. Abney, was a stark reminder of the deep-seated racism and inequality that persisted in America, even after the Civil Rights Movement.

Need to Know

  • Baconsfield Park was created as a whites-only space by the will of Senator Augustus O. Bacon in 1911.
  • Despite legal challenges, the park remained segregated until 1966, when the Supreme Court ruled that it could no longer operate on a racially discriminatory basis.
  • Rather than integrate, the Georgia Supreme Court closed the park, a decision upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1970.

The Supreme Court case Evans v. Newton (1966) addressed the racial segregation of Baconsfield Park in Macon, Georgia. The Court held that the park could not exclude non-white people, as it was held in trust by a public entity. Even after the city attempted to transfer the trust to private trustees, the Court maintained that the park was public in nature and could not discriminate based on race. A subsequent case, Evans v. Abney (1970), arose after the Court’s ruling in Evans v. Newton. The state court determined that Senator Bacon’s intention to create a “whites only” park could not be fulfilled. As a result, the trust failed and the park’s property reverted to the Senator’s heirs.

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision that Senator Bacon, if he had known his objective was impossible or illegal, would have preferred that the land revert to his heirs. The Court held that refusing to apply the doctrine of cy pres did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Bacon’s heirs then sold the property to private developers, who converted it to commercial use.

The doctrine of cy pres

Senator Augustus O. Bacon

Takeaways and Impact on American Culture and Society

The closure of Baconsfield Park was a significant setback for the Civil Rights Movement and a stark illustration of the resistance to integration in the South. It demonstrated that even after legal victories, achieving true equality was an uphill battle. The decision also highlighted the limitations of the legal system in addressing deeply entrenched social and cultural norms.

The legacy of Baconsfield Park is a reminder of the ongoing struggle for racial justice in America. It is a symbol of the ways in which racism has been embedded in our institutions and laws, and the challenges of dismantling those systems.

Lessons Learned

The story of Baconsfield Park teaches us that legal victories alone are not enough to achieve equality. It is essential to address the underlying social and cultural attitudes that perpetuate discrimination. Additionally, we must be vigilant in protecting the gains that have been made in the Civil Rights Movement, and continue to work towards a truly just and equitable society for all.

Whites Only: DOJ Fines Virginia Tech Company For Racial Hiring Practice

 

“Whites Only” signs and racial preferences for American jobs, neighborhoods and even voting were a ubiquitous norm and symbol of racial segregation in the United States for much of the 20th century. These signs and racial preferences were used to restrict access to public facilities, such as schools, parks, and swimming pools, as well as private businesses, such as restaurants and hotels. These signs and racial preferences were a stark reminder of the culture of racism, the second-class status of African Americans and other people of color. Although much progress has been made for a better America, a recent job posting seeking “white” candidates offered evidence of the systemic racism that remains in our society, and a jarring reminder of a country still under construction to bring about sincere change. 

The origins of “Whites Only” signs and clearly noted preferences can be traced back to the Jim Crow era, which began in the late 19th century and lasted until the mid-20th century. However, racism and discrimination is part of the bedrock of America. Still, during this time, southern states passed a series of laws that established a system of racial segregation. These laws mandated the separation of Blacks and whites in all aspects of public life, including education, transportation, and housing.

“By the 1890s the expression “Jim Crow” was being used to describe laws and customs aimed at segregating African Americans and others. These laws were intended to restrict social contact between whites and other groups and to limit the freedom and opportunity of people of color.” – Smithsonian National Museum of American History

“Whites Only” signs and preferences were a key part of the Jim Crow system. They were used to enforce segregation and to remind African Americans of their inferior status. These signs and racial preference were often placed in prominent locations, such as the entrances of public buildings and businesses, including the “whites only” job posting from Arthur Grand that led to the Justice Department’s “determination that the company violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by posting a discriminatory job advertisement in March 2023 that restricted eligible candidates to ‘only US Born Citizens [white] who are local within 60 miles from Dallas, TX [Don’t share with candidates].’ (brackets in original). The Labor Department’s agreement resolves its determination that Arthur Grand violated Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin.”

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s challenged the Jim Crow system and led to the passage of landmark legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These laws outlawed segregation and discrimination based on race. As a result, “Whites Only” signs and racial preferences for social access, housing and jobs began to disappear from public places.

Today,  open use of “Whites Only” signs and preferences are supposed to be a relic of the past. But they’re not, as racism remains an insidious evil that operates in the dark as Arthur Grand reminds. Systemic racism in hiring is real and active. Racism and open discrimination, once rampant in the United States, still runs amuck. These discrimination practices that some corporations and institutions still protect and uphold remain a stain and part of the fabric of the nation. Nonetheless, Arthur Grand’s discrimination practices and DOJ’s investigation and subsequent response is a reminder of the on-going struggle for civil rights, the progress that has been made and continues to be made.

Op-Ed: The Treatment of Black Women in Business

Editors note: this opinion piece comes from Anthony Baldini, Founder of Athlete Strategies & “Sports in LA” | Sports business analyst | Investor in women’s sports properties. Baldini is a communications and business development advisor at the intersection of sports, technology, and venture capital.

This post is about the treatment of Black women in business. If you can’t handle it respectfully, don’t comment. Our collective goal for any discussion should be progress, not ego on who is right/wrong.  Nike is signing Caitlin Clark to an eight-figure deal and giving her a signature shoe – an obvious decision for the apparel behemoth. 

However, this means that the only active WNBA players with active signature shoes are: CC, Breanna Stewart, Elena Delle Donne, and Sabrina Ionescu. 

What do they have in common? They’re all white women playing in a dominantly Black league.

This is a new development. Previously, almost every WNBA player signature shoe from 1995-2011 belonged to a Black woman: Sheryl Swoopes, Rebecca Lobo (Cuban), Lisa Leslie, Dawn Staley, Cynthia Cooper, Nikki McCray, Chamique Holdsclaw, Diana Taurasi (Argentinian-Italian) and Candace Parker. 

Stardom drives shoe deal decisions, but shoe deals also drive stardom. Marketers and media have the ability to dictate culture and what’s popular. And right now, basketball companies are saying *only* white women are the face of the WNBA, when A’ja, Arike, Jewell, AT and Sky are right there. 

Some say “they’re just the best players right now and more marketable,” but come on. COME ON. Stop that. Anyone who is authentically working in women’s sports genuinely understands that representation matters, both ethically and economically. Anyone disagreeing with that is a false actor. This is a truth I have seen first-hand. 

The U.S. economy stands to add trillions annually if there were more women entrepreneurs (which would require VCs funding women at a greater clip than the current 2-13% rate). Meanwhile, underrepresentation of Black businesses is costing the economy additional billions in unrealized revenues. And so it as a member of both these groups, the Black woman, who faces hardship and unequal footing in America in society and in business, from private civilians to premier basketball players. 

A’ja Wilson is on the 2024 TIME100 List. And yet for all the progress in society regarding race, and the celebration that is made of A’ja now in media, when it comes to actual *business transactions* that require supporting Black women there is a statistical-based significant fall off that is supported by anecdotal evidence like this WNBA shoe example. 

Credit to shoe brands for their aforementioned work from 1995-2011. But how in the 12+ years since have we not had a Black woman in the WNBA with an active signature shoe line? It’s not enough for a player to just have a colorway. The signature shoe and the marketing push behind it comes with social implications.

I’m asking those with the power to create change to value Black Women.