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.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?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that most of the south would have desegregated on its own.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 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 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 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.
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.
Waiting for racial desegregation to happen naturally is somthing that would have required several generations to accomplish.
Waiting for racial desegregation to happen naturally is somthing that would have required several generations to accomplish.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
We don't need high speed rail, we have high speed jet planes.....
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?