• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The south would have desegregated itself

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,412
Reaction score
13,540
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,961
Reaction score
17,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?
If one takes the insight of slavery extension and the long-argued fight over gradual emancipation and so on, in addition to the beginnings and context of de jure and de facto segregation in the South, you kind of lean toward the proposition that such statements are optimistic and/or naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

The South may have desegregated itself, but it would have been an extraordinarily extended and piecemeal process. You would likely have pockets of desegregated private and/or public entities, each desegregating on an argued basis. For instance, perhaps desegregation could only occur in X building for the purposes of A, B, and C, but not D, E, or F.

When Did Southern Segregation Begin?: John David Smith: 9780312257385: Amazon.com: Books
 
Last edited:

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,598
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's a very common logical fallacy; Hypothesis contrary to fact(s).

It's a big favorite of those who lost and cannot begin to admit to themselves that, indeed, the Civil War was about slavery.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,211
Reaction score
13,926
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that most of the south would have desegregated on its own.

I do think a few states probably would have changed on their own, but only after decades of pressure. E.g. I can imagine Florida desegregating. Mississippi? Louisiana? Georgia? Virginia? Arkansas? No. ****ing. Way.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?



We can change the future but we can't change the past.

The South lost the Civil War and it won't be rising again.

Wait and see.

:lol:
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
11,837
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?

I did a lot of my growing up under segregation. And my small, ultra conservative redneck town desegregated voluntarily long before the government was involved in desegregation. I indeed think if the people had been left alone, cultural pressures would have gently brought about an end to segregation. And had it been done that way, it would have been infinitely more beneficial to the black people who would have been integrated into instead of forcibly inserted into the general society. And there wouldn't have been near the problems and issues that we had.

Allowing people to choose to do the right thing is always preferable to forcing them to do the right thing.
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
30,718
Reaction score
10,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?

You started with a fallacy though, no one has argued a right to refuse GLBT persons, overtly religious business people have not wanted to participate in homosexual weddings, which is a large distinction.

Regardless, I think it would've happened eventually, by the time of the early 2000's be ease of transportation and the adventure of instantaneous communication technologies makes ruling with an iron fist far more difficult. The 1960s was an era with many people were still trapped in their way is, because they were not mobile. You died in the town you were born in. It is easy to keep old habits and never confront them if they are never challenged
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,721
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I did a lot of my growing up under segregation. And my small, ultra conservative redneck town desegregated voluntarily long before the government was involved in desegregation. I indeed think if the people had been left alone, cultural pressures would have gently brought about an end to segregation. And had it been done that way, it would have been infinitely more beneficial to the black people who would have been integrated into instead of forcibly inserted into the general society. And there wouldn't have been near the problems and issues that we had.

Allowing people to choose to do the right thing is always preferable to forcing them to do the right thing.

Waiting for racial desegregation to happen naturally is somthing that would have required several generations to accomplish.
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,598
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Allowing people to choose to do the right thing is always preferable to forcing them to do the right thing.

Not when it comes to legally recognizing the fundamental rights of fellow citizens and allowing them to exercise them.

History shows it often requires the force of law for that.
 

Frank Apisa

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
11,492
Reaction score
2,718
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They probably would have ended slavery.

I doubt they would have ended segregation.

Many seem to long for segregation even now.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,961
Reaction score
17,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not when it comes to legally recognizing the fundamental rights of fellow citizens and allowing them to exercise them.

History shows it often requires the force of law for that.

Waiting for racial desegregation to happen naturally is somthing that would have required several generations to accomplish.

Absolutely right, gentlemen (though I would tack on to United's post a " ,if ever" to end the sentence). Moral suasion is a likely good start, but rarely an end with civil rights.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
11,837
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Waiting for racial desegregation to happen naturally is somthing that would have required several generations to accomplish.

I don't think so. I have a great respect for the ability of people to recognize and respect justice and do it through the democratic process instead of by authoritarian mandate.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
11,837
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Not when it comes to legally recognizing the fundamental rights of fellow citizens and allowing them to exercise them.

History shows it often requires the force of law for that.

Nope. History shows that the best results are when the will of the people reigns supreme. That's how we got to be a country in the first place. The people rose up against an unjust law.
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

If we're talking about emancipation, then I believe the South would have eventually done, but no one knows how long it would have taken them to do it on their own.

Otherwise, with Equal Opportunity regulations...

No, the South would not have desegregated itself even before 2015. The South is a really diverse area of the US. So many different groups are competing for resources and still use racial bias to achieve that end. As you pointed out, racism is still real. Groups which do not assign themselves a "racist" image, but who promote an agenda on the basis of empowering a group of people who are white would not have ceded much power to people of other creeds. The fact that communities in the South struggled with the issue of race and equality for a long time had a huge impact on the culture surrounding desegregation. The only reason why this issue is argued, it seems, is to recall that desegregation occurred and it worked.

History shows that the South didn't desegregate sooner, and later desegregation would not serve the South well. Our society works the way it does when everyone eats, but if/when everyone drinks from the same water, it should be an equal opportunity. Dissolving guidelines that segregate two water fountains makes it easier for people to use public resources.
 
Last edited:

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,412
Reaction score
13,540
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think so. I have a great respect for the ability of people to recognize and respect justice and do it through the democratic process instead of by authoritarian mandate.

The authoritarianism started when people decided to take others for slaves, stripped them of their identities, and turned them into property.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,721
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't think so. I have a great respect for the ability of people to recognize and respect justice and do it through the democratic process instead of by authoritarian mandate.

I can understand your position, but i think that justice was being denied to entire generations of people due to racial segregation

Was there any justice for emmet till?
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You started with a fallacy though, no one has argued a right to refuse GLBT persons, overtly religious business people have not wanted to participate in homosexual weddings, which is a large distinction.

Regardless, I think it would've happened eventually, by the time of the early 2000's be ease of transportation and the adventure of instantaneous communication technologies makes ruling with an iron fist far more difficult. The 1960s was an era with many people were still trapped in their way is, because they were not mobile. You died in the town you were born in. It is easy to keep old habits and never confront them if they are never challenged

We still lack high speed rail. We can't say for sure that it wouldn't be possible in a vastly segregated area which practices discrimination. The discrimination of segregated housing alone could contribute to socioeconomic disparities which would treat a lower class with lower paying job, like construction.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,721
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nope. History shows that the best results are when the will of the people reigns supreme. That's how we got to be a country in the first place. The people rose up against an unjust law.

But what if a federal government intervenes to stop the implementation of an unjust state law?
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
30,718
Reaction score
10,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
We still lack high speed rail. We can't say for sure that it wouldn't be possible in a vastly segregated area which practices discrimination. The discrimination of segregated housing alone could contribute to socioeconomic disparities which would treat a lower class with lower paying job, like construction.

We don't need high speed rail, we have high speed jet planes.....
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?

People in the South are reasonably intelligent. Given that, it seems unlikely that they would have embraced a completely retarded idea like desegregation without being forced to.
 

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,412
Reaction score
13,540
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Fiddy, I think there would still be pockets of segregation today. Did you hear about Craig Cobb? He is a white power leader who moved to North Dakota with a plan to take over the small town by calling likeminded people to come together. People like that still exist. They want political power, but they don't have it like they used to.

If one takes the insight of slavery extension and the long-argued fight over gradual emancipation and so on, in addition to the beginnings and context of de jure and de facto segregation in the South, you kind of lean toward the proposition that such statements are optimistic and/or naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

The South may have desegregated itself, but it would have been an extraordinarily extended and piecemeal process. You would likely have pockets of desegregated private and/or public entities, each desegregating on an argued basis. For instance, perhaps desegregation could only occur in X building for the purposes of A, B, and C, but not D, E, or F.

When Did Southern Segregation Begin?: John David Smith: 9780312257385: Amazon.com: Books
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,598
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nope. History shows that the best results are when the will of the people reigns supreme. That's how we got to be a country in the first place. The people rose up against an unjust law.

That was before we had a Constitution and guaranteed rights. Not everyone had the benefit of them after we finally did get one.

Those who wanted to rightly fully claim theirs after being denied them had to fight for them, sometimes needing the force of law to do so and maintain those rights. That's simple, undeniable reality.

The 20th century, especially, is rife with examples of this.
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We don't need high speed rail, we have high speed jet planes.....

I mean public transportation. A plane ticket costs quite a bit of money, so this wouldn't do for migrant communities and families trying to leave the South. I know a guy who worked as an engineer and spent a great deal of time travelling for his job. Air travel rewards frequent fliers, but jet fuel is a lot more expensive than train fuel, at least judging by ticket pricing.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
29,372
Reaction score
15,511
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?

Meanwhile........phony intellectual white guilt northerners are still fleeing the hood when too many blacks move in.

I wonder why?
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fiddy, I think there would still be pockets of segregation today. Did you hear about Craig Cobb? He is a white power leader who moved to North Dakota with a plan to take over the small town by calling likeminded people to come together. People like that still exist. They want political power, but they don't have it like they used to.

Yes, but one town isn't enough to regulate anything beyond municipal government. White power leaders who want the authority they used to have would have to control an entire state. The only way they could accomplish that at this point is through military force. I doubt any presidential candidate would support re segregation.
 
Top Bottom